Back to Cost/FRE and Match Reports – 1995 [5]

Ask the Scholar

Document scope · 1 page

doc

Scholar

Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory. For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.

Scholar Source Context

Document identity

localId

289844659

label

Cost/FRE and Match Reports – 1995 [5]

core

doc

dtoType

document

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/289844659

pageCount

Source metadata

289844659

sourceUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/289844659

contentType

document

title

Cost/FRE and Match Reports – 1995 [5]

citationUrl

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/289844659

collections

Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration)

Shirley Sagawa's Files

iiifBase

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/99905611/99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-003-2023.pdf

thumbnailUrl

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/99905611/99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-003-2023.pdf

largeImageUrl

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/99905611/99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-003-2023.pdf

imageCount

hasImages

yes

source

import

hasTranscription

Source extras

url

https://catalog.archives.gov/id/289844659

naId

289844659

levelOfDescription

fileUnit

otherTitles

99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-003-2023

recordType

description

ocrSource

nara-archive

Single page context

seq

pageIndex

type

document

url

https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/99905611/99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-003-2023.pdf

mediaId

2153c4b1d4e9ce7a

ocrText

FOIA Number: 2013-0661-F (2) FOIA MARKER This is not a textual record. This is used as an administrative marker by the William J. Clinton Presidential Library Staff. Collection/Record Group: Clinton Presidential Records Subgroup/Office of Origin: National Service Series/Staff Member: Shirley Sagawa Subseries: OA/ID Number: 24265 FolderID: Folder Title: Cost/FTE and Match Reports - 1995 [5] Stack: Row: Section: Shelf: Position: S 66 1 9 1 South All State Pregrams Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% A 8 94ASCAL001 Alabama National & Community Service State Commission Competitive Birmingham AIDS Outreach 13.0 $13,420 AL $87,792 $64,368 $19,427 15% $41,332 39% Birmingham AIDS Outreach (BAO) 29.0 $13,787 AL $195,844 $154,234 $43,338 15% $97,510 39% Competitive Subtotal 42.0 $355,672 $218,602 $62,765 15% $138,842 39% Formula Alabama Council on Human 20.0 $12,913 Relations, Inc. AL $135,065 $88,937 $29,881 15% $74,287 46% Montgomery YMCA 24.0 $13,510 AL $162,078 $124,551 $35,241 15% $68,120 35% State Association of CASA 21.0 $9,008 AL $81,039 $88,425 $17,779 15% $36,800 29% The University of Alabama 20.0 $3,876 AL $0 $77,521 $0 0% $49,503 39% West Alabama Health Services, Inc." 20.0 $11,036 AL $135,060 $54,665 $29,875 15% $24,659 31% Formula Subtotal 105.0 $635,828 $434,099 $112,776 12% $253,369 36% Grantee Total Alabama National & Community 147.0 $991,500 $652,701 $175,541 13% $392,211 37% 94ASCAK002 Alaska State Community Service Commission Competitive South Alaska Guidance Association Juneau 71.5 $13,287 (SAGA) AK $333,200 $560,815 $328,784 46% $988,571 64% Competitive Subtotal 71.5 $389,186 $560,815 $328,784 46% $988,571 64% Formula Nine Star Enterprises, Inc. Anchorage 9.0 $16,079 AK $61,172 $68,795 $13,739 15% $34,844 34% Rural Alaska Community Action 9.0 $17,291 $60,777 . Program, Inc. AK $80,066 $52,210 41% $58,744 42% Formula Subtotal 18.0 $151,466 $148,861 $65,949 28% $93,588 38% Grantee Total Alaska State Community Service 89.5 $540,652 $709,676 $394,733 34% $1,082,159 47% January 19, 1996 Page 1 Southwest Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% 94ASCAZ003 Arizona National and Community Service Commission Competitive AZ Board of Regents / Rural Health 22.0 $14,663 Office / Univ of AZ AZ $148,970 $138,749 $33,522 15% $101,970 42% Competitive Subtotal 22.0 $183,839 $138,749 $33,522 15% $101,970 42% Formula Arizona Center for Vocational & 28.5 $11,946 Technical Skills AZ $186,324 $134,647 $36,318 15% $321,227 70% AZ Council of Centers for Children & 24.0 $12,254 Adults (ACCCA) AZ $162,072 $90,737 $35,890 15% $87,024 49% City of Mesa, AZ 24.0 $11,984 AZ $162,072 $72,826 $38,206 15% $56,512 44% Formula Subtotal 76.5 $623,973 $298,210 $110,414 15% $464,763 54% Grantee Total Arizona National and Community 98.5 $807,812 $436,959 $143,936 15% $566,733 51% 94ASCAR004. Arkansas Commission on National and Community Service Formula Arkansas Family Network 13.0 $12,762 AR $87,789 $47,295 $20,935 15% $17,376 27% Southeast Arkansas Community 10.0 $15,023 Based Education Center AR $67,533 $66,705 $14,739 15% $41,465 38% Univ of Central Arkansas 24.5 $12,792 AR $166,441 $108,037 $36,247 15% $77,998 42% Formula Subtotal 47.5 $407,489 $222,037 $71,921 15% $136,839 36% Grantee Total Arkansas Commission on National and 47.5 $407,489 $222,037 $71,921 15% $136,839 36% 94ASCCA005 California Commission on Improving Life Through Service Competitive California Conservation Corps Sacramento 117.5 $14,016 CA $641,535 $766,601 $587,326 40% $841,840 52% County of Sacramento, Department 50.0 $13,800 of Parks and Recreation CA $337,650 $251,873 $77,334 15% $190,732 43% East Bay Conservation Corps 126.0 $17,778 CA $773,798 ? $230,241 19% $666,688 35% January 19, 1996 Page 2 Pacific Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Kern County Superintendent of 28.0 $13,762 Schools CA $173,127 $165,270 $74,180 25% $99,387 38% Los Angeles Conservation Corps 142.0 $15,273 CA $965,278 $958,839 $252,752 17% $1,064,164 53% Sacramento Child Abuse Prevention 22.0 $13,952 Council CA $141,813 $120,497 $45,602 20% $157,243 57% Competitive Subtotal 485.5 $3,909,631 $3,528,252 $1,267,435 23% $3,020,054 46% Formula AD Care, Inc. San Luis Obispo 29.0 $12,160 CA $199,371 $108,938 $43,005 15% $58,102 35% Bay Area Youth Agency Consortium 52.0 $14,167 CA $351,156 $301,754 $170,188 28% $400,388 57% Cal Poly Pomona Foundation, Inc. 13.3 $17,365 CA $94,711 $125,819 $18,400 15% $63,161 33% California Conservation Corps 94.0 $8,759 CA $298,306 $429,642 $594,817 60% $707,011 62% California Conservation Corps 41.5 $13,239 CA $280,856 $189,766 $88,378 20% $1,216,222 87% California Conservation Corps 119.0 $5,584 .CA $112,159 $418,176 ? 82% $953,105 70% California Court Appointed Special 24.0 $14,488 Advocate Association CA $162,078 $138,399 $36,938 15% $46,138 25% Civic Center Barrio Housing 24.0 $14,566 Corporation CA $166,841 $150,770 $35,034 15% $49,115 25% Community Services & Employment 18.0 $12,695 Training, Inc. (C-SET) CA $121,557 $57,902 $30,111 15% $47,949 45% Constitutional Rights Foundation 22.0 $14,810 CA $150,158 $127,273 $35,039 15% $121,978 49% EYE Counseling and Crisis Services 37.0 $17,263 CA $251,449 $325,528 $55,290 15% $128,250 28% Imperial County Office of Education 27.0 $14,487 CA $186,011 $154,833 $41,922 15% $92,406 37% Partners In School Innovation 14.0 $17,656 CA $94,542 $134,278 $126,257 53% $105,363 44% Redwood Community Action Agency 21.0 $14,457 CA $143,778 $130,655 $38,858 18% $128,411 50% January 19, 1996 Page 3 Pacific Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Sacramento County Office of 21.5 $16,949 Education CA $145,386 $193,543 $35,018 17% $103,986 35% San Diego Consortium & Private 23.0 $14,667 Industry Council CA $156,913 $146,630 $42,851 18% $80,134 35% Sonoma County People for Economic 21.0 $14,507 Opportunity CA $144,200 $110,495 $37,331 16% $35,927 25% The June Burnett Foundation 48.0 $14,768 CA $336,065 $323,612 $91,182 19% $603,223 65% Volunteer Center of San Francisco 24.0 $18,526 CA $153,106 $252,293 $160,189 45% $185,150 42% Yolo County Superintendent of 30.0 $13,331 Schools CA $206,163 $151,039 $47,433 16% $102,802 40% Formula Subtotal 703.3 $4,777,418 $3,971,345 $2,817,886 26% $5,228,821 44% Grantee Total California Commission on Improving 1,188.8 $8,687,050 $7,499,597 $4,085,321 25% $8,248,875 45% 94ASCCO006 Community Partnership Office Competitive Volunteers of America Colorado 19.0 $10,965 Branch, Inc. CO $128,702 $47,717 $28,354 15% $15,693 25% Competitive Subtotal 19.0 $160,626 $47,717 $28,354 15% $15,693 25% Formula Colorado Mountain College 24.0 $10,568 CO $144,780 $72,294 $57,907 24% $25,276 26% Larimer County Employment & 17.0 $13,776 Training Services CO $114,805 $89,984 $25,449 15% $35,937 29% Office of Rural Job Training 14.0 $13,512 . .CO $0 $189,173 $169,987 100% $127,28,6 40% Sheridan School District #2 22.0 $13,123 CO $148,968 $104,712 $32,468 15% $250,598 71% Formula Subtotal 77.0 $509,535 $456,163 $285,811 39% $439,097 41% Grantee Total Community Partnership Office 96.0 $670,161 $503,880 $314,165 34% $454,790 38% 94ASCCT007 Connecticut Commission on National & Community Service January 19, 1996 Page 4 Atlantic Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Competitive Bridgeport Police Department 34.5 $14,975 CT $226,353 $259,545 $45,369 15% $198,300 43% Community Action for Greater 33.0 $13,755 Middlesex County, Inc. CT $222,849 $175,912 $49,071 15% $130,052 43% Leadership, Education and Athletics 83.0 $15,542 in Partnership CT $466,350 $787,975 $339,098 40% $955,206 55% Southend Community Services, Inc. 30.0 $13,334 CT $202,590 $149,652 $65,942 21% $95,812 40% Competitive Subtotal 180.5 $1,287,506 $1,373,084 $499,480 23% $1,379,370 45% Formula City of Meriden, Connecticut 20.0 $9,695 CT $89,280 $92,933 $122,583 55% $79,303 46% Volunteer Center of Greater 46.5 $13,620 Bridgeport CT $315,812 $251,599 $67,367 15% $104,958 29% Formula Subtotal 66.5 $482,711 $344,532 $189,950 35% $184,261 38% Grantee Total Connecticut Commission on National & 247.0 $1,770,217 $1,717,616 $689,430 27% $1,563,631 43% 94ASCDC009 D.C. Commission on National & Community Service Formula Latin American Youth Center Washington DC 17.5 $13,791 DC $127,500 $88,730 $26,932 15% $71,409 45% The Community Partnership for the 0.0 ? Prevention of Homelessness DC $0 $30,000 $0 0% $38,930 56% Formula Subtotal 17.5 $152,615 $118,730 $26,932 7% $110,339 51% Grantee Total D.C. Commission on National & 17.5 $152,615 $118,730 $26,932 7% $110,339 51% 94ASCDE008 Delaware Commission on National & Community Service Competitive Delaware Parent Aide & Resource 20.0 $12,334 Mother Coalition DE $137,700 $94,205 $26,909 15% $34,020 27% 20.0 $152,484 $94,205 $26,909 Competitive Subtotal 15% $34,020 27% January 19, 1996 Page 5 Atlantic Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Formula Dover Housing Authority Dover 20.0 $13,700 DE $135,065 $104,687 $29,878 15% $43,250 29% Formula Subtotal 20.0 $169,313 $104,687 $29,878 15% $43,250 29% Grantee Total Delaware Commission on National & 40.0 $321,797 $198,892 $56,787 15% $77,270 28% 94ASCFL010 Florida Governor's Commission on Community Service Competitive Frostproof Care Center, Inc. 20.0 $13,970 FL $135,065 $109,578 $32,661 16% $129,207 54% St. Petersburg Junior College 40.0 $13,720 FL $270,130 $212,362 $59,369 15% $155,015 42% Competitive Subtotal 60.0 $506,249 $321,940 $92,030 16% $284,222 48% Formula Centro Campesino-Farmworker 22.0 $13,888 Center, Inc FL $148,566 $118,700 $34,325 16% $163,175 58% City of Brooksville 18.0 $14,140 FL $121,559 $101,951 $26,924 15% $34,060 25% Escambia-Pensacola Human 15.0 $13,938 Relations Commission FL $101,299 $84,569 $22,721 15% $91,889 52% Greater Miami Service Corps 30.0 $13,427 FL $202,598 $167,564 $44,530 16% $151,093 47% Lake County Board of County 13.0 $13,938 Commissioners FL $87,789 $69,238 $25,470 19% $66,013 49% Legal Aid Service of Broward County, 20.0 $16,247 Inc. FL $135,060 $157,393 $45,461 21% $65,307 29% Okaloosa-Walton Community College 20.0 $13,624 FL $135,065 $103,704 $29,783 15% $88,796 46% The Center for Drug-Free Living, Inc 20.0 $15,201 FL $135,065 $137,551 $29,375 15% $45,004 25% United Way of Martin County 20.0 $13,938 FL $135,065 $101,341 $117;662 40% $53,012 34% United Way of the Big Bend 20.0 $15,201 FL $135,060 $134,546 $31,096 16% $116,787 46% Formala Subtotal 198.0 $1,660,736 $1,176,557 $407,347 19% $875,136 41% January 19, 1996 Page 6 South Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Grantee Total Florida Governor's Commission on 258.0 $2,166,985 $1,498,497 $499,377 18% $1,159,358 42% 94ASCGA011 GA Commission on National and Community Service Competitive Georgia Dept. of Community Affairs 60.0 $13,800 GA $405,195 $340,328 $98,149 17% $343,558 50% Hands on Atlanta, Inc. 77.0 $12,508 GA $520,000 $320,183 $113,465 15% $172,541 35% YMCA of Metropolitan Atlanta, Inc. 20.0 $13,469 GA $135,065 $101,266 $29,666 15% $71,615 41% Competitive Subtotal 157.0 $1,298,745 $761,777 $241,280 16% $587,714 42% Formula City of Macon/ Police Department 20.0 $13,785 GA $135,065 $107,149 $32,568 16% $138,387 56% Douglas/Coffee County Service 23.0 $13,465 Corps, Inc. GA $160,418 $122,806 $32,981 15% $307,136 71% Georgia School-Age Care 21.0 $13,984 Association, Inc. GA $150,154 $130,783 $28,745 15% $133,775 51% Metro Atlanta Task Force for the 22.0 $13,630 Homeless GA $148,566 $115,600 $57,861 24% $85,195 42% Mid State Children's Challenge 24.0 $13,507 Projects, Inc. GA $166,841 $130,916 $34,104 15% $82,565 39% Southwest Georgia Easter Seal 8.0 $12,619 Society, Inc. GA $54,026 $32,957 $11,999 15% $33,135 50% West Georgia Medical Center 20.0 $10,692 GA $138,546 $58,704 $30,449 16% $38,724 40% Formula Subtotal 138.0 $1,118,985 $698,915 $228,707 17% $818,917 50% Grantee Total GA Commission on National and 295.0 $2,417,730 $1,460,692 $469,987 16% $1,406,631 48% 94ASCSD043 General Convention of Sioux YMCAs Formula General Convention of Sioux YMCAs Dupree 12.0 $13,493 SD $64,499 $80,524 $16,762 17% $26,841 25% Formula Subtotal 12.0 $81,395 $80,524 $16,762 17% $26,841 25% January 19, 1996 Page 7 North Central Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Grantee Total General Convention of Sioux YMCAs 12.0 $81,395 $80,524 $16,762 17% $26,841 25% 94ASCMD021 Governor's Commission on Service Competitive Action for the Homeless, Inc. 27.0 $12,159 MD $182,338 $102,290 $39,885 15% $98,744 49% Maryland Conservation Corps 151.0 $14,570 (MD-DNR-Public Lands & Forestry) MD $835,508 ? $420,260 30% $770,150 39% Maryland State Department of 30.0 $11,951 Education MD $202,590 $105,191 $45,111 15% $69,300 40% Montgomery County Government, 23.5 $15,953 Department of Police MD $167,850 $175,194 $92,341 32% $208,279 54% University of Maryland at Baltimore 22.0 $14,588 MD $149,039 $136,233 $45,196 20% $112,735 45% Volunteer Maryland/Governor's 120.0 $13,794 Office on Volunteerism MD $810,360 $660,512 $664,358 40% $450,105 41% Competitive Subtotal 373.5 $2,842,633 $2,395,282 $1,307,151 25% $1,709,313 45% Formula Anne Arundel Community College Arnold 20.0 $15,790 MD $79,028 $226,644 $15,733 15% $120,684 35% Frostburg State University 29.0 $14,738 MD $195,824 $186,101 $56,887 19% $83,226 31% Salisbury State University 20.0 $12,066 MD $128,307 $83,641 $27,831 15% $32,450 28% University of Maryland at Baltimore 22.0 $14,588 MD $149,039 $136,233 $45,196 20% $112,735 45% Formula Subtotal 91.0 $672,836 $632,619 $145,647 17% $349,095 35% Grantee Total Governor's Commission on Service 464.5 $3,515,468 $3,027,901 $1,452,797 22% $2,058,408 41% 94ASCOH036 Governor's Community Service Commission Competitive Greater Columbus Arts Council 20.0 $16,603 OH $137,045 $166,331 $67,293 29% $151,410 48% Neighborhood Centers Association 20.0 $13,245 OH $139,034 $97,418 $29,556 15% $118,717 55% January 19, 1996 Page 8 North Central Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Competitive Subtotal 40.0 $333,203 $263,749 $96,849 22% $270,127 51% Formula Center for Alternative Resources 21.0 $17,190 OH $144,200 $184,696 $31,112 15% $163,860 47% Community Resource Center 13.0 $12,834 OH $91,365 $54,832 $19,764 15% $18,518 25% Ohio Coalition for the Homeless 31.0 $12,625 OH $209,353 $129,304 $107,061 29% $204,439 61% Ohio Department of Youth Services 20.0 $15,037 OH $135,065 $126,608 $30,729 15% $143,958 53% Ohio University 28.0 $13,886 OH $189,091 $142,610 $43,446 15% $139,712 49% Riverview Behavioral Healthcare 16.0 $15,220 Services, Inc. OH $108,048 $106,689 $23,022 14% $59,419 36% The Vietnam Veterans of America 10.0 $15,235 OH $67,530 $62,765 $15,813 15% $143,979 70% Toledo Area Private Industry Council 25.5 $12,003 OH $175,979 $87,108 $38,640 15% $124,154 59% University of Dayton - SWEAT, Inc. 20.0 $17,033 OH $135,065 $166,359 $30,759 15% $117,645 41% Youngstown State University 10.0 $11,600 OH $67,530 $28,746 $17,550 17% $14,074 33% Formula Subtotal 194.5 $1,677,620 $1,089,717 $357,896 17% $1,129,758 47% Grantee Total Governor's Community Service 234.5 $2,010,823 $1,353,466 $454,745 17% $1,399,885 48% 94ASCHI012 Hawaii State Commission on National & Community Service Competitive Hawaii Lawyers Care 22.5 $14,488 HI $151,600 $156,274 $42,762 20% $213,685 58% Competitive Subtotal 22.5 $169,713 $156,274 $42,762 20% $213,685 58% Formula AmeriCorps ACHIEVE Hawaii 17.0 $13,828 HI $121,550 $104,219 $23,095 15% $91,504 47% DLNR Youth Corps 7.0 $9,819 HI $16,349 $51,132 $13,200 43% $95,464 65% January 19, 1996 Page 9 Pacific Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Formula Subtotal 24.0 $148,449 $155,351 $36,295 29% $186,968 56% Grantee Total Hawaii State Commission on National 46.5 $318,162 $311,625 $79,057 26% $400,653 57% 94ASCID013 Idaho Commission for National & Community Service Formula Idaho Department of Parks and 10.0 $12,382 Recreation ID $67,533 $38,745 $53,003 38% $86,550 69% Lewis-Clark State College 13.0 $13,265 ID $90,535 $67,390 $17,268 14% $100,736 60% Formula Subtotal 23.0 $190,124 $106,135 $70;271 26% $187,286 64% Grantee Total Idaho Commission for National & 23.0 $190,124 $106,135 $70,271 26% $187,286 64% 94ASCIL014 Illinois Commission on Community Service Competitive Cornerstone Services, Inc. 20.0 $0 IL $0 $0 $323,200 100% $0 0% Mid-America Chapter, American Red 26.0 $14,465 Cross IL $175,585 $156,747 $38,706 15% $128,650 45% Public Allies - Chicago 40.0 $11,283 IL $245,960 $164,567 $419,333 59% $112,673 41% Competitive Subtotal 86.0 $506,110 $321,314 $781,239 58% $241,323 29% Formula Asian Human Services of Chicago, 0.0 ? Inc. IL $0 $29,000 $0 0% $9,667 25% Belleville Area College 22.0 $12,739 IL $151,345 $100,864 $31,666 15% $33,465 25% Chicago Commons Association 20.0 $15,631 IL $135,060 $146,021 $29,405 15% $58,888 29% City of Decatur, Illinois 24.0 $12,884 IL $162,072 $90,011 $38,690 15% $30,014 25% Illinois Department of Corrections 0.0 ? IL $0 $29,828 $0 0% $22,616 43% Illinois Department of Energy and 25.0 $13,957 Natural Resources IL $174,785 $143,280 $75,825 27% $48,110 25% January 19, 1996 Page 10 North Central Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Latino Youth, Inc. 15.0 $15,656 IL $101,298 $113,600 $23,918 16% $36,799 24% Rend Lake College 20.0 $12,321 IL $143,004 $91,618 $27,317 15% $30,257 25% Rend Lake College 25.0 $14,012 IL $170,810 $154,190 $34,617 15% $101,680 40% Southern Illinois University at 20.0 $13,274 Edwardsville IL $135,060 $101,403 $28,962 15% $58,566 37% Travelers & Immigrants Aid 0.0 ? IL $0 $28,699 $0 0% $45,668 61% United Way of Champaign County 20.0 $15,297 IL $135,060 $140,411 $32,400 16% $111,476 44% Uptown Habitat for Humanity 9.0 $12,731 IL $60,779 $21,030 $16,509 15% $82,114 80% Formula Subtotal 200.0 $1,666,150 $1,189,955 $339,309 13% $669,320 37% Grantee Total Illinois Commission on Community 286.0 $2,172,260 $1,511,269 $1,120,548 21% $910,643 36% 94ASCIN015 Indiana Commission on Community Service Competitive Marion County Family Advocacy 20.0 $12,564 Center, Inc. IN $135,462 $85,444 $29,264 15% $92,939 52% State Student Assistance 27.0 $12,706 Commission of Indiana (SSACI) IN $182,338 $114,288 $40,373 15% $230,334 67% Competitive Subtotal 47.0 $394,613 $199,732 $69,637 15% $323,273 59% Formula City of Elkhart 18.0 $13,586 IN $121,554 $92,035 $54,307 26% $96,316 51% Community Centers of Indianapolis, 20.0 $11,318 Inc. IN $135,065 $59,625 $29,425 15% $28,032 32% Fort Wayne Community Schools 10.0 $13,573 IN $69,517 $55,563 $14,149 15% $46,067 45% Fort Wayne Parks & Recreation 11.5 $13,225 IN $51,750 $82,076 $70,011 50% $154,390 Department 65% Hoosier Valley Economic Opportunity 10.0 $13,466 Corporation IN $67,530 $49,923 $16,248 16% $33,232 40% January 19, 1996 Page 11 North Central Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Martin University 13.5 $13,753 IN $91,418 $86,940 $17,424 15% $29,656 25% Middle Way House, Inc. 10.0 $0 IN $0 $0 $0 0% $0 0% Mt. Vernon Community School 10.0 $13,740 Corporation IN $67,530 $54,504 $16,792 17% $103,565 66% Telamon Corporation 8.5 $15,511 IN $60,777 $58,146 $13,004 15% $35,437 38% Formula Subtotal 111.5 $809,499 $538,812 $231,360 19% $526,695 40% Grantee Total Indiana Commission on Community 158.5 $1,204,112 $738,545 $300,997 18% $849,968 44% 94ASCIA016 Iowa Commission on Community Service Competitive Des Moines Independent Community 20.0 $12,110 School District IA $141,412 $82,484 $33,417 17% $43,213 34% Mid-lowa Community Action, Inc. 25.0 $10,391 IA $168,832 $51,126 $36,819 15% $23,500 31% Competitive Subtotal 45.0 $368,366 $133,610 $70,236 16% $66,713 33% Formula Community Corrections Improvement 22.5 $12,083 Association IA $152,538 $81,321 $33,632 15% $127,294 61% lowa Coalition Against Domestic 20.0 $12,134 Violence IA $135,060 $74,709 $30,746 15% $34,664 32% lowa State University Extension 14.0 $15,219 IA $83,003 $129,444 $14,757 15% $120,537 48% Formula Subtotal 56.5 $442,129 $285,474 $79,135 15% $282,495 47% Grantee Total Iowa Commission on Community 101.5 $810,495 $419,084 $149,371 16% $349,208 41% 94ASCKS017 Kansas Commission on National and Community Service Competitive Kansas State University 42.0 $14,581 KS $128,313 $436,404 $49,737 22% $305,559 41% Topeka Youth Project 28.0 $14,906 KS $178,998 $199,871 $54,864 20% $166,090 45% January 19, 1996 Page 12 Southwest Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Competitive Subtotal 70.0 $393,484 $636,275 $104,601 21% $471,649 43% Formula Fort Hays State Univ 20.0 $11,450 KS $130,050 $86,451 $25,156 15% $75,710 47% Mennonite Housing Rehabilitation 8.0 $14,481 Services Inc KS $54,026 $44,309 $12,648 15% $14,572 25% United Way of Wyandotte County 21.0 $12,048 KS $131,808 $99,422 $40,823 21% $91,430 48% Wichita State University 0.0 ? KS $0 $0 $0 0% $0 0% Formula Subtotal 49.0 $367,667 $230,182 $78,627 13% $181,712 30% Grantee Total Kansas Commission on National and 119.0 $761,151 $866,457 $183,228 16% $653,361 34% 94ascky018 Kentucky Community Service Commission Competitive Homeless and Housing Coalition of 40.0 $12,506 Kentucky, Inc. KY $270,120 $160,127 $78,955 19% $187,627 54% Morehead State University 31.0 $13,800 KY $209,351 $169,558 $45,572 15% $382,118 69% Northern Kentucky United Way and 20.0 $13,596 Community Chest KY $135,060 $102,441 $29,908 15% $98,285 49% Simpson County Board of Education 25.0 $12,911 KY $169,065 $114,685 $36,722 15% $37,738 25% Competitive Subtotal 116.0 $975,936 $546,811 $191,157 16% $705,768 49% Formula Christian County Public Schools 18.0 $13,269 KY $121,554 $78,986 $28,217 15% $68,983 47% Community Action Council 18.0 $13,269 KY $121,559 $88,512 $26,530 15% $33,791 28% Eastern Kentucky University 22.0 $12,164 KY $149,600 $93,803 $30,670 15% $230,130 71% The Neighborhood Place 18.5 $13,017 KY $125,129 $86,957 $46,532 23% $26,474 23% Formula Subtotal 76.5 $637,840 $348,258 $131,949 17% $359,378 42% January 19, 1996 Page 13 South Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Grantee Total Kentucky Community Service 192.5 $1,613,776 $895,069 $323,106 17% $1,065,146 46% 94ASCLA019 Louisiana Serve Commission Competitive New Orleans Youth Action Corps 66.0 $30 LA $0 $2,000 $0 0% $0 0% Competitive Subtotal 66.0 $0 $2,000 $0 0% $0 0% Formula Mid City Redevelopment Alliance 40.0 $14,825 LA $270,130 $256,439 $61,618 15% $140,449 35% Shreveport Green 7.5 $16,667 LA $53,610 $61,925 $11,150 15% $88,176 59% Tri-State Girls & Boys Club 0.0 ? LA $0 $45,000 $0 0% $16,400 27% University of Southwestern Louisiana 19.0 $14,432 LA $135,850 $126,477 $26,076 15% $80,462 39% Vernon Community Action Council Inc 6.0 $12,169 LA $40,518 $22,998 $9,185 16% $18,118 44% Formula Subtotal 72.5 $597,389 $512,839 $108,029 12% $343,605 41% Grantee Total Louisiana Serve Commission 138.5 $597,389 $514,839 $108,029 10% $343,605 34% 94ASCME020 Maine Commission on National & Community Service Competitive Portland West Neighborhood 20.0 $13,800 Planning Council ME $135,065 $118,570 $34,644 18% $68,267 37% Competitive Subtotal 20.0 $157,430 $118,570 $34,644 18% $68,267 37% Formula Job Training Administrative Office 22.0 $14,523 ME $102,888 $189,468 $83,837 39% $230,989 55% Formula Subtotal 22.0 $130,032 $189,468 $83,837 39% $230,989 55% Grantee Total Maine Commission on National & 42.0 $287,462 $308,038 $118,481 29% $299,256 46% 94ASCMA022 Massachusetts National & Community Service Commission January 19, 1996 Page 14 Atlantic Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Competitive City Year Boston 308.0 $11,688 MA ? ? $304,651 15% $1,960,593 51% YouthBuild Boston, Inc. 89.0 $12,204 MA $245,752 $764,615 $160,730 33% $1,027,162 57% Competitive Subtotal 397.0 $2,047,943 $2,638,257 $465,381 24% $2,987,755 54% Formula Berkshire Training and Employment 11.0 $4,199 Program MA $16,365 $19,599 $78,674 75% $135,551 87% Cambridge Community Services 5.5 $13,696 MA $30,129 $41,503 $17,612 34% $63,970 61% City of New Bedford 0.0 ? MA $0 $25,000 $0 0% $25,421 50% Corporation for Public Management 8.0 $16,118 MA $31,725 $89,219 $47,831 55% $145,502 62% Greater Holyoke Foundation, Inc. 18.0 $11,886 MA $103,602 $79,929 $44,776 25% $114,811 59% Lawrence Youth Commission 30.0 $8,369 MA. $100,888 $121,601 $75,647 37% $504,261 81% Lowell YWCA 10.0 $6,000 MA $39,735 $9,910 $40,985 45% $124,545 93% Old Colony Y Services Corps 24.0 $10,417 MA $109,300 $115,900 $54,100 29% $163,600 59% ROCA Inc. 15.0 $10,101 MA $52,602 $88,589 $93,483 60% $206,524 70% University of Massachusetts at 0.0 ? Boston MA $0 $25,000 $0 0% $20,697 45% University of Massachusetts Boston 9.0 $11,973 MA $51,000 $56,760 $9,131 15% $127,274 69% Worcester Community Action Council 30.0 $7,399 MA $143,182 $52,957 $86,587 34% $202,455 79% Formula Subtotal 160.5 $830,733 $725,967 $548,826 34% $1,834,611 68% Grantee Total Massachusetts National & Community 557.5 $2,878,676 $3,364,224 $1,014,207 33% $4,822,366 66% 94ASCMI023 Michigan Community Service Commission January 19, 1996 Page 15 North Central Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Competitive The Regents of The University of 32.0 $10,913 Michigan MI $215,300 $95,006 $77,248 23% $295,627 76% United Way Community Services 20.0 $13,083 MI $135,065 $90,440 $38,136 18% $47,373 34% Competitive Subtotal 52.0 $425,431 $185,446 $115,384 21% $343,000 55% Formula American Youth 21.0 $14,565 Foundation-Miniwanca MI $141,818 $131,026 $37,491 18% $60,884 32% Big Brothers Big Sisters of 16.0 $15,934 Metropolitan Detroit MI $108,048 $122,313 $30,067 18% $49,875 29% Eastern Michigan University 19.0 $11,684 MI $67,100 $142,444 $119,461 60% $195,528 58% Ecumenical Project SAVE 20.0 $12,050 MI $135,060 $74,188 $30,628 16% $68,497 48% Grand Rapids Service Corps 34.0 $7,728 MI $192,000 $42,239 $129,638 37% $226,485 84% Marquette County Health Department 12.0 $14,095 MI $81,039 $67,464 $17,945 15% $22,448 25% Michigan State University 8.0 $14,272 MI $33,891 $77,525 $6,469 15% $115,725 60% Oakland University 20.0 $12,068 MI $143,004 $92,880 $26,201 15% $61,557 40% SOS Crisis Center 20.0 $0 MI $0 $0 $0 0% $0 0% United Way of Genesee and Lapeer 28.0 $11,432 Counties MI $191,869 $90,614 $40,498 15% $118,654 57% United Way of Saginaw County 32.0 $9,583 MI $187,095 $88,451 $166,970 43% $124,312 58% Formula Subtotal 230.0 $1,508,833 $929,144 $605,368 23% $1,043,965 45% Grantee Total Michigan Community Service 282.0 $1,934,264 $1,114,590 $720,752 23% $1,386,965 46% 94ASCMN024 Minnesota Commission on National & Community Service Competitive City of Saint Paul 63.5 $13,646 MN $426,218 $344,486 $96,583 16% $208,463 38% January 19, 1996 Page 16 North Central Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Minnesota Department of Natural 77.0 $604 Resources MN $0 $2,326 ? 96% $594,412 100% Southeastern Minnesota Initiative 55.0 $13,025 Fund MN $371,429 $253,883 $103,150 18% $94,193 27% Competitive Subtotal 195.5 $1,028,797 $600,695 $1,224,840 43% $897,068 55% Formula Minneapolis Public Schools- Family 25.0 $11,251 and Community Education MN $163,269 $80,828 $45,284 18% $177,558 69% Minnesota Department of Economic 67.5 $0 Security MN $0 $0 $695,352 100% $695,486 100% Neighborhood House Association 24.0 $10,825 MN $137,447 $95,240 $68,590 29% $261,429 73% Pillsbury Neighborhood Services, Inc. 26.0 $10,753 MN $135,061 $116,257 $87,913 35% $111,214 49% Two or More, Inc. 25.0 $14,012 MN $167,930 $134,946 $39,145 15% $244,831 64% Formula Subtotal 167.5 $743,701 $427,271 $936,284 40% $1,490,518 71% Grantee Total Minnesota Commission on National & 363.0 $1,772,498 $1,027,966 $2,161,124 41% $2,387,586 65% 94ASCMS025 Mississippi Commission for National & Community Service Formula North Mississippi Regional Center 13.5 $10,596 (NMRC) MS $94,940 $34,174 $19,234 15% $23,789 41% Operation Shoestring, Inc. 27.0 $11,211 MS $182,338 $85,749 $38,284 15% $153,940 64% Southem Coalition for Educational 15.0 $15,123 Equity MS $101,295 $99,689 $23,271 15% $94,050 49% Formula Subtotal 55.5 $452,963 $219,612 $80,789 15% $271,779 51% Grantee Total Mississippi Commission for National 55.5 $452,963 $219,612 $80,789 15% $271,779 51% 94ASCMO026 Missouri Commission on Community Service Competitive American Youth Foundation 43.0 $14,615 MO $290,389 $273,573 $79,385 18% $335,839 55% January 19, 1996 Page 17 Southwest Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% American Youth Foundation 28.0 $13,516 MO $189,090 $145,381 $49,905 18% $219,680 60% Grace Hill Neighborhood Services 20.0 $13,761 MO $135,050 $108,091 $29,769 15% $93,167 46% Competitive Subtotal 91.0 $755,094 $527,045 $159,059 17% $648,686 54% Formula Inter/Serv 23.3 $12,797 MO $141,811 $126,503 $32,583 16% $89,464 41% Lincoln Univ 8.0 $13,776 MO $57,200 $48,620 $10,880 15% $27,939 36% Southeast Missouri State University 27.5 $14,518 MO $128,312 $236,271 $28,760 15% $125,823 35% YMCA of Greater Kansas 15.0 $13,604 MO $87,167 $92,932 $36,237 25% $143,850 61% YouthNet of Greater Kansas City 24.5 $12,948 MO $148,710 $143,470 $148,274 46% $142,965 50% Formula Subtotal 98.3 $680,459 $647,796 $256,734 23% $530,041 45% Grantee Total Missouri Commission on Community 189.3 $1,435,553 $1,174,841 $415,793 21% $1,178,727 48% 94ASCMT027 Montana Community Services Advisory Council Competitive Montana Conservation Corps, Inc. 118.5 $7,574 MT $384,333 $386,025 $731,212 59% $1,006,859 72% The University of Montana 5.0 $8,000 MT $0 $40,000 $8,960 100% $67,696 63% Competitive Subtotal 123.5 $511,475 $426,025 $740,172 79% $1,074,555 68% Formula Missoula Aging Services, Inc. 23.0 $14,073 MT $156,302 $128,744 $34,048 15% $66,018 34% Formula Subtotal 23.0 $194,940 $128,744 $34,048 15% $66,018. 34% Grantee Total Montana Community Services 146.5 $706,415 $554,769 $774,220 58% $1,140,573 56% 94ASCNC034 NC State Commission on National & Community Service January 19, 1996 Page 18 South Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Competitive North Carolina State University 30.0 $13,678 NC $195,360 $199,263 $37,250 15% $142,839 42% The University of North Carolina at 35.0 $12,261 Greensboro NC $202,055 $171,940 $85,729 25% $232,088 57% Competitive Subtotal 65.0 $468,273 $371,203 $122,979 20% $374,927 50% Formula AIDS Service Agency of North 66.0 $3,052 Carolina, Inc. NC $94,545 $71,642 $22,906 15% $230,566 76% City of Wilmington, Wilmington Police 14.0 $11,473 Department NC $98,512 $47,811 $23,250 17% $24,953 34% Day Care Services Association 22.0 $12,186 NC $145,953 $86,538 $39,050 18% $50,748 37% Lutheran Family Services in the 21.3 $9,407 Carolinas NC $106,602 $72,298 $22,663 15% $80,882 53% NC Center for the Study of Black 17.0 $11,850 History NC $121,554 $67,290 $23,675 15% $24,150 26% NC Low Income Housing Coalition 22.0 $13,007 NC $148,572 $100,693 $61,603 25% $276,589 73% The University of North Carolina at 24.5 $13,463 Chapel Hill NC $150,640 $165,471 $68,419 29% $158,341 49% University of North Carolina at 12.5 $7,592 Charlotte NC $0 $94,903 $0 0% $47,280 33% Formula Subtotal 199.3 $1,036,524 $706,646 $261,566 17% $893,509 48% Grantee Total NC State Commission on National & 264.3 $1,504,797 $1,077,849 $384,545 17% $1,268,436 48% 94ASCNE028 Nebraska Commission for National and Community Service Competitive Lincoln Action Progam 3.0 $0 NE $0 $0 $0 0% $0 0% Competitive Subtotal 3.0 $0 $0 $0 0% $0 0% Formula Community Action of Nebraska, Inc. 24.0 $13,975 NE $162,078 $127,986 $36,602 15% $42,663 25% January 19, 1996 Page 19 North Central Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Indian Centers, Inc. 6.0 $13,795 NE $40,520 $30,970 $9,140 15% $21,330 41% Formula Subtotal 30.0 $259,214 $158,956 $45,742 15% $63,993 33% Grantee Total Nebraska Commission for National 33.0 $259,214 $158,956 $45,742 10% $63,993 22% 94ASCNV029 Nevada Commission for National & Community Service Formula Battle Mountain Band Council Battle Mountain 0.0 ? NV $0 $7,500 $0 0% $2,539 25% St. John's Evangelical Lutheran 10.0 $13,332 Church NV $67,533 $49,995 $14,704 15% $19,912 28% University of Nevada, Las Vegas 17.5 $13,405 NV $130,200 $86,465 $37,029 20% $61,785 43% Formula Subtotal 27.5 $231,440 $143,960 $51,733 12% $84,236 32% Grantee Total Nevada Commission for National & 27.5 $231,440 $143,960 $51,733 12% $84,236 32% 94ASCNH030 New Hampshire Commission on National & Community Service Competitive NH Coalition Against Domestic and 32.0 $13,016 Sexual Violence NH $202,590 $166,534 $44,115 15% $97,600 39% Student Conservation Association, 20.0 $19,901 Inc. NH $54,825 $314,701 $14,704 15% $142,400 31% Competitive Subtotal 52.0 $333,298 $481,235 $58,819 15% $240,000 35% Formula Newfound Area School District 0.0 ? NH $10,350 $9,650 $3,450 25% $6,675 41% Tri-County Community Action 23.5 $12,921 Program, Inc. NH $159,127 $110,705 $34,198 15% $37,935 26% Formula Subtotal 23.5 $203,288 $120,355 $37,648 20% $44,610 33% Grantee Total New Hampshire Commission on 75.5 $536,586 $601,590 .$96,467 18% $284,610 34% 94ASCNJ031 New Jersey Commission on National & Community Service January 19, 1996 Page 20 Atlantic Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Competitive Edison Youth Service Corps, Inc. 5.0 $400 NJ $0 $2,000 $49,264 100% $41,292 95% New Jersey Youth Corps 101.5 $14,534 NJ $676,888 $650,796 $272,280 25% $666,241 51% Urban Schools Service Corps 144.5 $13,729 NJ $756,336 ? $159,019 15% $413,866 28% Competitive Subtotal 251.0 $1,725,356 $1,735,795 $480,563 47% $1,121,399 58% Formula Catholic Community Services 16.3 $12,193 NJ $110,632 $63,220 $23,812 15% $29,318 32% Community Agencies Corporation 23.5 $12,082 NJ $81,039 $172,335 $19,694 15% $113,247 40% International Institute of New Jersey 20.0 $12,349 NJ $137,446 $82,767 $28,980 15% $102,758 55% New Jersey Community Development 22.0 $15,301 Corporation NJ $135,060 $163,372 $43,140 20% $68,200 29% New Jersey Public Interest Research 22.5 $12,322 Foundation NJ $135,065 $108,422 $38,585 19% $43,228 29% Prevent Child Abuse--New Jersey 17.5 $16,625 Chapter NJ $119,554 $144,258 $30,375 17% $57,899 29% Rutgers University 20.7 $12,097 NJ $146,112 $86,686 $29,024 15% $116,299 57% Union City Day Care Program, Inc. 20.0 $10,133 NJ $13,506 $185,543 $3,022 15% $251,886 58% Formula Subtotal 162.4 $1,079,925 $1,006,603 $216,632 16% $782,835 41% Grantee Total New Jersey Commission on National & 413.4 $2,805,281 $2,742,398 $697,195 25% $1,904,234 46% 94ASCNM032 New Mexico Commission for National & Community Service Competitive National Indian Youth Leadership 20.0 $14,440 Development Project Inc NM $135,060 $137,743 $26,664 15% $45,021 25% Competitive Subtotal 20.0 $151,059 $137,743 $26,664 15% $45,021 25% January 19, 1996 Page 21 Southwest Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Formula Siete del Norte Community 21.5 $14,845 Development Corporation NM $148,028 $155,377 $28,905 15% $71,728 32% Formula Subtotal 21.5 $163,793 $155,377 $28,905 15% $71,728 32% Grantee Total New Mexico Commission for National 41.5 $314,852 $293,120 $55,569 15% $116,749 28% 94ASCNY033 New York Commission on National & Community Service Competitive Aspira of New York, Inc. 83.0 $13,800 NY $560,519 $460,440 $120,875 15% $252,720 35% City Volunteer Corps, Inc 120.0 $12,950 NY $441,288 ? $123,992 19% $570,283 35% New York City Police Department 43.5 $11,547 NY $172,484 $316,631 $178,874 49% $319,899 50% New York State Corps Collaboration 132.0 $13,800 NY $810,578 $819,538 $217,328 18% $804,415 50% RF/CUNY on behalf of New York City 12.5 $2,000 Technical College NY $0 $25,000 $0 0% $47,295 65% Rheedlen Centers for Children and 65.0 $10,740 Families NY $438,945 $132,913 $99,756 15% $173,737 57% The Institute for Human Services, 20.0 $13,800 Inc. NY $135,065 $103,440 $34,731 17% $192,360 65% Competitive Subtotal 476.0 $3,125,976 $2,896,399 $775,556 19% $2,360,709 51% Formula Bedford Stuyvesant Community 20.0 $13,800 Conference Inc. NY $135,065 $122,051 $27,167 15% $76,201 38% Bronx Youth Conservation Corps 35.0 $12,432 (BYCC) NY $221,500 $165,878 $165,120 38% $123,452 43% Clinton County Youth Bureau 15.0 $11,190 NY $67,533 $84,481 $14,711 15% $30,550 27% Health Association of Niagara 20.0 $13,800 County, Inc. (HANCI) NY $135,065 $109,041 $29,463 15% $271,110 71% Monroe Community College 94.0 $12,094 NY $634,806 $318,781 $144,362 15% $328,932 51% New York State Corps Collaboration 50.0 $13,800 c/o YRDC NY $317,234 $300,141 $72,642 16% $240,598 44% January 19, 1996 Page 22 Atlantic Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% New York State Council on Children 20.0 $12,675 and Families NY $135,065 $78,106 $30,950 15% $89,869 54% Phoenix House Foundation, Inc. 91.5 $9,960 NY $506,494 $280,961 $196,765 24% $582,655 67% YMCA of Greater New York: 20.0 $13,773 AmeriCorps Project NY $135,060 $103,590 $71,435 29% $134,106 56% Youth Resource Development 20.0 $13,793 Corporation (YRDC) NY $130,139 $105,029 $39,144 19% $41,425 28% Formula Subtotal 385.5 $3,029,875 $1,668,059 $791,759 20% $1,918,898 48% Grantee Total New York Commission on National & 861.5 $6,155,851 $4,564,458 $1,567,315 20% $4,279,607 49% 94ASCOK037 Oklahoma Community Service Commission Formula Literacy Coalition for Metro Tulsa Inc 24.0 $11,026 OK $162,078 $65,840 $35,079 15% $143,008 68% OK State Service Council - American 20.0 $10,069 $39,900 $79,932 Red Cross OK $135,065 $41,906 20% 66% Rural Health Projects, Inc. 22.0 $15,645 OK $148,968 $160,276 $32,456 15% $115,960 42% Formula Subtotal 66.0 $542,165 $268,022 $107,435 17% $338,900 59% Grantee Total Oklahoma Community Service 66.0 $542,165 $268,022 $107,435 17% $338,900 59% 94ASCOR038 Oregon Community Service Commission Competitive COCC (Central Oregon Community Bend 18.8 $13,956 College Foundation) OR $127,682 $120,615 $24,924 15% $76,635 39% Forest Grove School District 16.0 $125 OR $0 $2,000 $0 0% $0 0% Maple Elementary School/School 10.0 $200 District #19, Springfield OR $0 $2,000 $0 0% $15,308 88% Oregon Coalition Against Domestic 21.0 $15,815 OR $141,813 $156,615 $33,944 16% $53,642 and Sexual Violence 26% Competitive Subtotal 65.8 $316,561 $281,230 $58,868 8% $145,585 38% January 19, 1996 Page 23 Pacific Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Formula Friends of the Children Portland 20.0 $15,930 OR $135,065 $157,900 $28,358 15% $104,302 40% Multnomah County District Attorney's 20.0 $11,646 Office OR $131,460 $70,014 $51,637 24% $24,595 26% OR Dept of Human Resources (DHR) 20.0 $12,305 OR $135,065 $78,889 $29,509 15% $24,985 24% Formula Subtotal 60.0 $490,815 $306,803 $109,504 18% $153,882 30% Grantee Total Oregon Community Service Commission 125.8 $807,376 $588,033 $168,372 12% $299,467 35% 94ASCPA039 PennSERVE: The Governor's Office of Citizen Service Competitive PA Association of Colleges and 50.0 $15,898 Universities PA $337,650 $391,641 $86,412 18% $136,425 26% Competitive Subtotal 50.0 $403,260 $391,641 $86,412 18% $136,425 26% Formula Appalchia Intermediate Unit 8-PA 52.0 $13,994 Mountain Service Corps PA $351,169 $293,756 $76,580 15% $167,154 36% Butler Regional Family Treatment 26.5 $14,825 Program Service PA $135,060 $222,123 $31,282 15% $83,727 27% City of Philadelphia, Fairmount Park 5.0 $11,731 Commission PA $40,000 $8,936 $34,768 41% $60,256 87% County of Allegheny Department of 20.0 $13,434 Federal Program PA $135,060 $101,275 $29,550 15% $32,975 25% Energy Coordinating Agency of 25.0 $13,769 Philadelphia, Inc. PA $168,831 $132,384 $37,383 15% $257,226 66% Keystone School District 31.0 $13,562 PA $203,872 $176,477 $43,050 15% $62,056 26% Pennsylvania Campus 35.0 $16,679 Compact/PACU PA $235,620 $316,481 $47,168 15% $166,760 35% Union-Snyder Office of Human 21.5 $10,526 Resources PA $145,681 $56,957 $29,886 15% $83,890 60% Visions International, Inc. 50.0 $7,437 PA $216,887 $78,216 $213,848 42% $880,919 92% YouthBuild Pittsburgh, Inc. 35.0 $13,656 PA $236,355 $191,716 $50,517 15% $64,166 25% January 19, 1996 Page 24 Atlantic Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Formula Subtotal 301.0 $2,294,130 $1,578,321 $594,032 20% $1,859,129 48% Grantee Total PennSERVE: The Governor's Office of 351.0 $2,697,390 $1,969,962 $680,444 20% $1,995,554 46% 94ASCPR040 Puerto Rico State Commission of Community Service Competitive Centros Sor Isolina Ferre, Inc. 20.0 $14,000 PR $135,065 $116,078 $28,929 15% $70,296 39% Competitive Subtotal 20.0 $163,923 $116,078 $28,929 15% $70,296 39% Formula The Office of Arroyo Mayor 21.0 $13,004 PR $141,638 $95,630 $31,959 15% $41,895 30% University of the Sacred Heart 20.0 $13,301 PR $139,035 $103,283 $28,719 15% $80,487 44% Youth Service Center, Arecibo 30.0 $12,283 PR $202,598 $135,844 $40,607 15% $81,596 38% Formula Subtotal 71.0 $572,843 $334,757 $101,285 15% $203,978 37% Grantee Total Puerto Rico State Commission of 91.0 $736,766 $450,835 $130,214 15% $274,274 38% 94ASCRI041 Rhode Island Commission for National and Community Service Competitive City Year, Inc. 66.0 $12,717 RI $311,355 $468,309 $65,469 15% $392,953 46% Public Education Fund 28.5 $15,439 RI $200,469 $197,915 $86,710 26% $207,656 51% The Rhode Island Children's Crusade 32.0 $15,454 for Higher Education RI $216,096 $228,026 $83,575 24% $117,891 34% Competitive Subtotal 126.5 $879,575 $894,250 $235,754 22% $718,500 44% Formula City of Pawtucket 19.0 $15,789 RI $128,311 $139,093 $28,396 15% $88,126 39% Formula Subtotal 19.0 $160,907 $139,093 $28,396 15% $88,126 39% Grantee Total Rhode Island Commission for National 145.5 $1,040,482 $1,033,343 $264,150 20% $806,626 42% January 19, 1996 Page 25 South Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% 94ASCSC042 South Carolina Commission on National & Community Service Formula Benedict College 20.0 $11,787 SC $135,060 $69,948 $30,448 16% $24,500 26% Lander University & Upper Savannah 16.0 $15,162 Cons. for Child & Family SC $98,573 $122,728 $20,305 14% $76,305 38% South Carolina Victim Assistance 24.0 $12,298 Network SC $147,849 $109,463 $32,767 15% $43,163 28% University of South Carolina 28.0 $11,267 SC $135,999 $152,403 $28,323 15% $117,023 43% Formula Subtotal 88.0 $634,414 $454,542 $111,843 15% $260,991 34% Grantee Total South Carolina Commission on 88.0 $634,414 $454,542 $111,843 15% $260,991 34% 94ASCTN044 Tenn. Commission on National & Community Service Competitive Memphis City Schools 18.3 $18,328 TN $133,075 $178,034 $27,082 15% $131,808 43% Nashville Healthcare 40.0 $13,657 Partnership/Middle Tennessee TN $270,120 $207,258 $62,210 16% $557,620 73% NashvilleREAD, Inc. 21.0 $13,560 TN $141,818 $106,809 $31,402 15% $61,248 36% Porter-Leath Children's Center 20.0 $12,015 TN $128,359 $80,069 $28,275 15% $69,706 47% The University of Tennessee at 20.0 $13,426 Chattanooga TN $135,065 $99,041 $29,906 15% $69,580 41% Competitive Subtotal 119.3 $1,004,651 $671,211 $178,875 15% $889,962 48% Formula Applalachia Habitat for Humanity 8.0 $10,956 TN $54,026 $19,863 $11,962 15% $226,532 92% Auxiliary Probation Service, Juvenile 25.0 $64 Court of Memphis & She TN $0 $1,600 $0 0% $115,648 99% Exchange Club Center for the 17.5 $15,353 Prevention of Child Abuse TN $67,532 $182,967 $15,125 15% $283,414 61% Knoxville-Knox County Community 20.0 $13,800 Action Committee TN $137,049 $96,387 $31,694 15% $100,033 51% January 19, 1996 Page 26 South Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% North Tennessee Private Industry 20.0 $11,800 Council, Inc. TN $135,060 $70,005 $29,299 15% $92,970 57% TN Dept. of Mental Health/Health 5.0 $14,220 Retardation TN $0 $70,071 $182 15% $33,640 32% Upper Cumberland County 10.0 $11,755 Community Health Agency TN $61,200 $49,715 $11,970 15% $58,830 54% Vanderbilt University Medical 20.0 $13,829 Center/Center for Health Servi TN $135,065 $107,849 $29,786 15% $107,322 50% Formula Subtotal 125.5 $736,683 $598,457 $130,018 13% $1,018,389 62% Grantee Total Tenn. Commission on National & 244.8 $1,741,334 $1,269,668 $308,893 14% $1,908,351 57% 94ASCTX045 Texas Commission for National & Community Service Competitive American Institute for Learning 95.0 $13,750 TX $406,700 $777,675 $296,143 36% $991,174 56% Children's Association for Maximum 20.0 $1,535 Potential (CAMP) TX $0 $30,690 $0 0% $26,494 46% City Year Inc 65.0 $12,588 TX $283,050 $475,793 $60,426 15% $425,589 47% Dallas Youth Services Corps 90.0 $8,292 TX $337,650 $320,587 $121,160 22% $108,580 25% Greater Dallas Community of 43.0 $13,753 Churches TX $294,359 $236,996 $73,436 17% $220,009 48% Mental Health Association in Texas 84.0 $11,770 TX $572,434 $280,309 $125,023 15% $210,554 43% Serve Houston 109.8 $11,873 TX $549,324 $605,668 $211,379 23% $263,959 30% Workreation Inc 21.1 $14,078 TX $143,405 $119,195 $31,387 15% $81,546 41% Competitive Subtotal 527.9 $3,235,513 $2,846,913 $918,954 18% $2,327,905 42% Formula Armed Services YMCA 20.0 $13,033 TX $135,065 $89,072 $30,283 15% $29,026 25% City Year Inc 0.0 ? TX $0 $2,240 $0 0% $2,000 47% January 19, 1996 Page 27 Southwest Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Middle Earth Unlimited Inc - Dba 26.0 $13,485 Youth Options TX $178,761 $138,480 $37,433 15% $45,561 25% Project Vida 19.5 $11,089 TX $135,061 $55,950 $28,288 15% $18,742 25% School of Social Work - Univ of TX at 31.3 $13,779 Arlington TX $176,724 $229,437 $35,501 15% $80,332 26% Serve Houston 25.2 $11,874 TX $125,993 $138,916 $48,482 23% $60,542 30% Texas Agricultural Extension Service 46.0 $13,299 TX $236,363 $330,094 $348,851 55% $134,465 29% Texas Department of Mental Health 46.5 $6,255 and Mental Retardation TX $0 $290,851 $0 0% $243,604 46% The Capitol Area Foster Parents 20.0 $11,554 Association TX $135,065 $51,410 $31,706 15% $88,538 63% The University of Texas at Austin 51.3 $7,446 TX $0 $258,467 $21,745 15% $91,281 26% The University of Texas at El Paso 12.0 $12,334 TX $71,500 $65,063 $14,755 15% $23,217 26% Workreation Inc 22.9 $14,050 TX $155,326 $129,103 $33,997 15% $88,324 41% Youth Harvest Community Services 50.0 $13,800 Program TX $325,125 $327,389 $63,990 15% $107,600 25% Formula Subtotal 370.6 $2,127,995 $2,106,472 $695,031 16% $1,013,232 33% Grantee Total Texas Commission for National & 898.5 $5,363,508 $4,953,385 $1,613,985 17% $3,341,137 37% 94ASCUT046 Utah Commission on National & Community Service Competitive Association for Utah Community 18.0 $12,563 Health UT $114,750 $84,905 $47,073 25% $47,286 36% Competitive Subtotal 18.0 $141,220 $84,905 $47,073 25% $47,286 36% Formula Davis County 10.0 $10,841 UT $68,850 $32,520 $13,391 15% $124,038 79% Dixie College 8.0 $10,550 UT $43,987 $35,007 $21,795 31% $40,608 54% January 19, 1996 Page 28 Pacific Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Grand County Council 8.5 $12,052 UT $55,036 $37,370 $42,015 39% $115,608 76% Ogden City Corporation 0.0 ? UT $0 $24,999 $0 0% $8,415 25% Salt Lake County - YOUTH FORCE 15.0 $11,343 UT $101,295 $42,219 $30,904 19% $26,813 39% Formula Subtotal 41.5 $318,272 $172,115 $108,105 21% $315,482 55% Grantee Total Utah Commission on National & 59.5 $459,492 $257,020 $155,178 22% $362,768 51% 94ASCVT048 Vermont Commission on National & Community Service Formula Lyndon State College 22.5 $13,321 VT $152,940 $110,427 $33,405 15% $87,094 44% Formula Subtotal 22.5 $189,290 $110,427 $33,405 15% $87,094 44% Grantee Total Vermont Commission on National & 22.5 $189,290 $110,427 $33,405 15% $87,094 44% 94ASCVA049 Virginia Commission on National & Community Service Formula Fredricksburg City Public Schools 20.0 $10,687 VA $135,860 $62,731 $26,649 15% $28,549 31% Northern Virginia Urban League, Inc. 20.0 $16,048 VA $135,065 $154,596 $29,356 15% $135,027 47% Southwest Virginia Community 20.0 $11,002 VA $0 $220,041 $0 0% $60,790 College 22% Urban League of Hampton Roads 15.0 $6,413 VA $0 $96,188 $0 0% $59,000 38% Virginia Commonwealth University 20.0 $11,995 VA $130,917 $93,333 $25,865 15% $34,195 27% Formula Subtotal 95.0 $463,937 $626,889 $81,870 9% $317,561 33% Grantee Total Virginia Commission on National & 95.0 $463,937 $626,889 $81,870 9% $317,561 33% 94ASCWA047 Washington Commission on National & Community Service Competitive Department of Ecology 100.0 $593 WA $0 $3,200 ? 95% $861,340 100% January 19, 1996 Page 29 Pacific Grantee Share % FTEs CNS share Subgrantee CNS A CNS B-F City State per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Employment Security Department 384.3 $9,096 ? ? ? 51% $928,818 WA 36% Kitsap Community Action Program 29.0 $12,531 WA $195,837 $133,930 $40,504 15% $64,437 32% (KCAP) 513.3 $2,097,125 $1,820,584 $3,050,235 Competitive Subtotal 54% $1,854,595 56% Formula Community Youth Services 32.5 $11,028 WA $219,104 $89,475 $67,123 20% $30,000 25% Educational Service District 101 22.0 $14,654 WA $104,292 $193,664 $93,068 42% $143,639 43% Neutral Zone 20.0 $12,210 WA $137,040 $91,131 $56,181 27% $58,209 39% Pasco School District #1 20.0 $13,841 WA $132,804 $112,060 $34,677 17% $99,298 47% YMCA of Snohomish County 20.0 $12,975 WA $140,618 $94,487 $42,400 20% $88,700 48% $880,491 $580,817 $293,449 Formula Subtotal 114.5 25% $419,846 40% Grantee Total Washington Commission on National 627.8 $2,977,616 $2,401,401 $3,343,684 36% $2,274,441 46% 94ASCWI051 Wisconsin National & Community Service Board Competitive Kenosha Voluntary Action Center II 11.0 $13,404 WI $73,594 $69,914 $29,610 28% $70,518 50% Milwaukee Community Service Corps 37.0 $7,669 WI $128,307 $128,396 $79,956 34% $44,663 26% $232,890 $198,310 $109,566 31% $115,181 38% Competitive Subtotal 48.0 Formula Catholic Charities Bureau, Inc. 0.0 ? WI $0 $7,606 $0 0% $23,116 75% Community Adolescent Program, Inc. 16.0 $15,335 WI $98,900 $119,070 $35,236 22% $123,660 51% Kenosha Voluntary Action Center 11.0 $13,953 $73,594 $69,914 $30,675 27% $70,518 WI 50% NorthCentral Technical College 27.0 $9,781 $158,696 $73,157 $35,129 16% $33,800 32% WI January 19, 1996 Page 30 North Central Grantee Share % Subgrantee FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F City State per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Open Door Community Center, Inc. 12.0 $15,138 WI $82,620 $88,125 $16,439 15% $29,375 25% Operation Fresh Start, Inc. 16.0 $10,817 WI $108,040 $30,490 $36,115 20% $92,543 75% Western Wisconsin Private Industry 20.0 $10,851 Council, Inc. WI $135,065 $60,429 $33,635 18% $20,158 25% Formula Subtotal 102.0 $793,483 $448,791 $187,229 17% $393,170 48% Grantee Total Wisconsin National & Community 150.0 $1,026,373 $647,101 $296,795 20% $508,351 45% 94ASCWV050 WV Commission for National & Community Service Competitive West Virginia Research Corp Morgandtown 13.3 $13,317 WV $60,077 $112,593 $56,322 46% $248,279 69% 13.3 $64,967 $112,593 $56,322 Competitive Subtotal 46% $248,279 69% Formula Regional Family Resources Network Charleston 15.0 $10,705 (RFRN) WV $102,486 $37,286 $23,735 16% $53,277 59% Southern Appalachian Labor School 15.0 $7,050 WV $68,000 $30,950 $58,849 44% $254,854 89% West Virginia Coalition Against 12.0 $16,979 Domestic Violence WV $81,039 $103,397 $20,162 17% $34,223 25% 42.0 $298,442 $171,633 $102,746 Formula Subtotal 26% $342,354 58% Grantee Total WV Commission for National & 55.3 $363,409 $284,226 $159,068 31% $590,633 60% 94ASCWY052 Wyoming Commission for National & Community Service Competitive Wyoming Crime Victims 20.0 $13,745 Compensation Commission WY $135,060 $105,074 $29,974 15% $35,500 25% 20.0 $169,817 $105,074 $29,974 15% Competitive Subtotal $35,500 25% Formula Laramie County Community College 11.3 $9,360 WY $0 $105,300 $0 0% $40,561 28% Wyoming Congress of Parents and 20.5 $9,498 Teachers (dba Wyoming PTA) WY $146,575 $34,464 $28,282 15% $12,136 26% January 19, 1996 Page 31 Pacific Grantee Share % Subgrantee City State FTEs CNS share CNS A CNS B-F per FTE Grantee A A% Grantee B-G B-G% Formula Subtotal 31.8 $160,236 $139,764 $28,282 8% $52,697 27% Grantee Total Wyoming Commission for National & 51.8 $330,053 $244,838 $58,256 10% $88,197 26% $57,750,253 $26,884,566 21% $56,387,301 45% Total 364 Programs 10,726.2 $72,858,619 CNS Total $130,608,872 Granke Total & $ 83,271,867 January 19, 1996 Page 32 Shirley n eed to discuss thathy what you need but this is my interpretation huket Corporation Grantee Share % Match % Total % AmeriCorps*State A. Member Support Costs $72,952,228 55.6% $25,834,345 31.8% $98,786,573 46.5% B through F Costs $58,247,624 44.4% $55,348,401 68.2% $113,596,025 53.5% Total $131,199,852 $81,182,746 $212,382,598 AmeriCorps*National (except Federals) A. Member Support Costs $21,098,778 48.4% $11,675,083 31.7% $32,773,861 40.8% B through F Costs $22,514,534 51.6% $25,115,808 68.3% $47,630,342 59.2% Total $43,613,312 $36,790,891 $80,404,203 AmeriCorps*Tribes and Territories A. Member Support Costs $1,439,725 51.0% $721,764 37.7% $2,161,489 45.6% B through F Costs $1,382,544 49.0% $1,190,998 62.3% $2,573,542 54.4% Total $2,822,269 $1,912,762 $4,735,031 Total AmeriCorps*Sta and AmeriCorps* National & AmeriCorps*Tribes and Territories (except Federals) A. Member Support Costs $95,490,731 53.8% $38,231,192 31.9% $133,721,923 44.9% B through F Costs $82,144,702 46.2% $81,655,207 68.1% $163,799,909 55.1% Total $177,635,433 $119,886,399 $297,521,832 Prepared by akim 2/16/96 Page 1 Shirby TR DRAFT - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 1996 REAUTHORIZATION COMMENTS: MATCH-RELATED SENDER ORGANIZATION State Source Program TOPIC AREA COMMENT Recommendations 1) Should set match requirement to economic indices for AC* different areas w/different resources; 2) Clarify fundraising/donation Betty Hicks Arkansas Commission AR State Match solicitation limits Recommendations: 1) Reduce 15% match requirement to 5% for greater innovative & fiscal flexibility; 2) Allow programs to use resources for other John Wedemeyer, YMCA/CSU PRYDE AC* fed/state agencies for cash match requirement; 3) Retain 25% combined Director AmeriCorps Consortium CA N/S Match cash/in-kind match requirement as is Roger Landrum, Recommendations 1) Provide only matching, competitive grants; 2) Make President Youth Service America DC T/TA Match federal match less than 50% of costs David Pierce, American Association of Recommendation: Increase nonfederal share -- Service-learning programs President Community Colleges DC L&S Match can be self-sustaining within 3 years of inception National and Community Jim Pitofsky, President Service Coalition DC N/A Match Recommendation: Maintain current levels of match requirements National and Community Recommendation: Devote more time to aiding grantees to secure non-federal Jim Pitofsky, President Service Coalition DC N/A Match support (e.g. thru T/TA on securing & sustaining support) Recommendations 1) Retain current match requirements as a minimum; 2) Kathleen Selz, Offer incentives (e.g. funding priority) to programs that can provide more Executive Director (NASCC) DC T/TA Match state or local cash match Kansas Office for Community AC* Recommendations: 1) Require increased match by year for AmeriCorps Patricia Kells Service KS State Match subgrantees; 2) Continue increased match required for L&S grantees Recommendations 1) Clarify max. time period for receipt of CNS funds; 2) Dave Crowley, Kentucky Community Service AC* Increase match requirement (e.g. 15% 25% 33% - 50% 75%); 3) Allow Director Commission KY State Match programs to tap into other fed. funding streams for non-CNS match Recommendations 1) Create challenge grant system; 2) Or, guarantee dollar Dave Crowley, Kentucky Community Service AC* for dollar matching on funds the legislature designate for implementation for Director Commission KY State Match the State plan Massachusetts AC* Recommendation: Mandate minimum 10% state cash match for all program Commission Massachusetts Commission MA State Match funds awarded by CNS to state Fran Rothstein, AmeriCorps/Youth Volunteer AC* Recommendations 1) Increase non-federal match (including in-kind) to 50% Washington Rep. Corps of America MD Natl Match of program costs; 2) Maintain current match requirements for stipends Recommendations 1) Reduce match requirements; 2) Broaden types of (In support of) Oakland funds that can be used for match; 3) Open dialogue w/business assocs. & Gregory C. Piazzn University MI N/A Match foundations for funding contributions CNS/Office of the General Counsel Page 1 1/30/96 DRAFT - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 1996 REAUTHORIZATION COMMENTS: MATCH-RELATED SENDER ORGANIZATION State Source Program TOPIC AREA COMMENT Recommendation: Localize identity of programs to encourage community Betty Marver MO Match investment Montana Campus Ryan Tolleson Knee & Corps/Montana Campus AC* Andrea Vernon Compact, U. of Montana MT State Match Recommendation: Require a hard cash match from each program Ellen Edwards New Jersey Commission on Mushinski & Rowena National and Community AC* Recommendation: Give corporations more flexibility to sponsor teams or Madden Service NJ State Match entire programs Recommendations: 1) Streamline finances at national and state level; 2) Sandee Jourden, Timetable for increasing match requirements depends on public perception Director RSVP/Village of Ruidoso NM RSVP Match and awareness of national service AC* Clinton County AmeriCorps NY State Match Recommendation: Eliminate matching grant requirements The Institute For Human AC* Recommendations: 1) Don't increase match requirements; 2) Give businesses Services NY State Match who fund programs free publicity The Institute For Human AC* Services NY State Match Recommendation: Change to overall in-kind match of 25% AmeriCorps/Save A Generation, Recommendations 1) Create a bridge/network to create job training related Gary Bogle, Executive Bronx Youth Conservation AC* to objectives of funders; 2) Match timetable of 3-year projects not as Director Corps NY State Match attractive to corporations who make projections based on 3-5 years AmeriCorps/Save A Generation, Gary Bogle, Executive Bronx Youth Conservation AC* Recommendation: 75%/25% 1st year; 70%/30% 2nd year; 50%/50% 3rd Director Corps NY State Match year Recommendations: 1) Don't increase non-federal match requirements; 2) Nikki Smith, on behalf AC* Wean programs off federal share in 3rd year to make programs self- of Commission New York Commission NY State Match sustaining Recommendations: 1) Phase in increases to match requirement; 2) Change Richard Pinner, AmeriCorps/"I Have a Dream" AC* time frame for applications & awards to facilitate solicitation of private Program Director Foundation NY Natl. Match sector funding Karen Scheid, VISTA/The Ohio Literacy Executive Director Network OH Vista Match Recommendation: Create a sliding scale for cost share AmeriCorps, L&S/Ofc. of AC* Glenn C. Odenbrett, Student Community Service, N/S, Recommendation: Give preference to programs that agree to highest Director CWRU OH L&S Match allowable federal share - 75% for programs affiliated w/nonprofits CNS/Office of the General Counsel Page 2 1/30/96 DRAFT - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 1996 REAUTHORIZATION COMMENTS: MATCH-RELATED SENDER ORGANIZATION State Source Program TOPIC AREA COMMENT Recommendations: 1) Allow programs to seek matching federal funds when Jerry Gabay for Jon AmeriCorps/NorthWest Service OR/ AC* working w/federal partners; 2) Include more TA w/program analysis if Stewart, Director Academy WA Natl. Match federal dollars disallowed for match Julie Ley, VISTA Recommendation: Ask programs to match 50% of VISTA's living allowance volunteer VISTA/One to One Philadelphia PA Vista Match and ed award L&S Sponsor/Rouse-Warren Comment: Federal share of funding for programs (e.g. L&S) leads to local Sonia M. Gigliotti County Home PA L&S Match matching funds and commitment David Karoff, AC* Recommendation: Establish concrete incentives for raising private sector Executive Director Rhode Island State Commission RI State Match funds (e.g. dollar for dollar match for funds raised beyond requirements) Lynda Diane Mull, AC* Executive Director AmeriCorps/AFOP VA Natl. Match Recommendation: Do not increase match requirements Patricia Bollin, VISTA/Washington-Oregon Recommendation: Make cost share equitable at 50-50 level for CNS Coordinator Housing Authorities WA Vista Match programs to be recognized as resources for the community Recommendation: (Includes a formula for a rationale for cost-sharing and Donald J. Eberly, determining the degree of decision-making by all parties contributing to cost Founding Director National Service Secretariat N/A Match of AmeriCorps) Lynn Thornton, AC* Recommendation: Allow a percentage of time for programs, members, & Executive Director Georgia Commission GA State Fundraising State Commissions for fundraising Recommendations: 1) Allow 15% of ACMs' time to be spent on fundraising (15% member costs currently paid by grantee); 2) Allow %-age Kansas Office for Community AC* proportionate to matching funds of State Commission staff time to be Patricia Kells Service KS State Fundraising engaged in fundraising Recommendations: 1) More public recognition (perhaps by White House); 2) Maryland Governor's AC* Guarantee efficient use of private sector funds for purposes specified by Lynn Bopp Commission on Service MD State Fundraising funder; 3) Explain to funders that natl. service stretches their charity dollars Recommendations: 1) Open service doors to funder's employees; 2) Use Maryland Governor's AC* private sector's human resources - In-kind contributions; 3) Offer programs Lynn Bopp Commission on Service MD State Fundraising opportunities to meet & get to know private funders Recommendation: Create ways for individuals to contribute (e.g. PSA Maryland Governor's AC* campaign followed by direct ask, opportunity to support service on federal Lynn Bopp Commission on Service MD State Fundraising tax forms from refund) AmeriCorps Pillsbury AC* Recommendation: Put together a nationwide campaign so that large national Andrea Breen Neighborhood Services MN N/S Fundraising companies provide national support to AmeriCorps, not just local. CNS/Office of the General Counsel Page 3 1/30/96 DRAFT - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION 1996 REAUTHORIZATION COMMENTS: MATCH-RELATED SENDER ORGANIZATION State Source Program TOPIC AREA COMMENT Comment: Some Programs that are part of larger agencies that contain many AmeriCorps Pillsbury AC* programs are restricted in who they may approach for funds because donors Andrea Breen Neighborhood Services MN N/S Fundraising may already be funding other programs in the agency. Montana Campus Ryan Tolleson Knee & Corps/Montana Campus AC* Andrea Vernon Compact, U. of Montana MT State Fundraising Recommendation: Allow directors to solicit private funds Richard Pinner, AmeriCorps/"I Have a Dream" AC* Program Director Foundation NY Natl. Fundraising Recommendation: Codify scope of fundraising ban AmeriCorps, L&S/Ofc. of AC* Recommendation: Require State Commissions/Offices to include "funders' Glenn C. Odenbrett, Student Community Service, N/S, forums" in state plans to highlight successes & explain Director CWRU OH L&S Fundraising rationale/technicalities of non-fed. match requirement AmeriCorps/Serve with Energy AC* Recommendation: Create incentives to increase private funding wherever Advisory Board and Talent (SWEAT) OH State Fundraising possible Jerry Gabay for Jon AmeriCorps/NorthWest Service OR/ AC* Recommendation: Liberalize guidelines for fundraising to help programs Stewart, Director Academy WA Natl. Fundraising w/large funding match requirements & encourage private-sector participation Recommendation: Give outside funders earned tax credits for assisting Pat Jones, Director RSVP/Centerville Clinics, Inc. PA RSVP Fundraising NSSC programs R. Benjamin Wiley, Greater Erie Community Action RSVP Recommendation: Provide tax break, national recognition to local Executive Director Committee PA FGP Fundraising organizations involved in CNS programs Lori J. Rank, Project RSVP/Lebanon & Lancaster Director County PA RSVP Fundraising Recommendation: Establish fund development trainings for programs Elan Welter Lewis, AmeriCorps/Butler Memorial Recommendation: Will use the evaluation process to determine effective Director, & Kristin Hospital Family Services Corps, AC* usage of public/private funds & will communicate cost savings to public at Karsh, Coordinator Butler County PA State Fundraising local level to increase "buy in" Recommendation: Increase partnerships w/ local businesses & foundation Jennifer MJ Yim, arms of corporations for collaboration on sponsoring national service & former VISTA UT Fundraising training Comments: 1) Successful programs should be able to attract community Gordon Richins, VISTA/OPTIONS' for donations and private sector grants on their own; 2) Give programs more VISTA Member Independence UT Vista Fundraising information on availability of non-federal funds CNS/Office of the General Counsel Page 4 1/30/96 Sagawa, Shirley From: Potter, Lance To: Sagawa, Shirley Subject: reform proposal notes Date: Wednesday, February 14, 1996 6:09PM Some comments one your reform proposal notes. 1) very impressive cranking it out. 2) on the living allowance: one thing we missed is that HWs proposal for $100/wk looks a lot more like a wage that the current structure. On the other hand, it would acutally reduce the cost of living allowance more than it appears because many programs run, say 40 to 45 weeks, not 52. Full-time, it only takes 42.5 weeks to do the 1700 (would we keep that?), so with a couple of weeks for sick and vacation (would they be paid?) its still more like 45 weeks, or 43 if you're not paying leave, so 4300-4500 may be more accurate. Of course, it only makes the situation worse for the programs re: match. 3) on the Vol MD! e.g., I'd say that it would be in the interest of the program to increase their contribution by $1300/member (so that they get the full CNS share)and one likely way they will do that is by inflating the value of their soft match. 4) on the challenge grant issue: it seems to me that there is, in fact, a problem with the first version, which is that at present we require that some of the match be in cash and be available on a quarterly basis to pay living allownace, etc. If they could use all our cash before they raise all their match, , they are more likely to get in trouble and/or pad. 5) beginning in the program design section and continuing into the ed-award-only section, I'd toy with the tone if this is going to HW. We were pretty dismissive of the ed-award-only idea, for good reason, but he's more likely to see our point if we don't seem defensive. It's not bad, but we've got a track record to compete against. Page 1 Dear Senator Grassley: Thank you for your recent letter summarizing your concerns about AmeriCorps. It is never pleasant to hear criticism but it is usually edifying, especially when the spirit is constructive. I very much appreciate your interest in improving the quality of this program, as you have done with so many other government programs in the past. After carefully reviewing our operations, I've decided we can make several changes that accommodate your concerns -- and go much farther. Taken together, these changes would not only make AmeriCorps more cost-effective but increase its impact as well. To reduce costs, we will take the following steps: Terminate grants to federal agencies - The Corporation will no longer provide AmeriCorps program grants to federal government service programs. This alone should Should sheded cut Corporation Federal costs roughly $1,000 [ck] per person. Impose a per-person limit on federal contribution for program costs -- Unless they can No Steps cost make a powerful argument for special treatment, no program will receive more than we $5,000 [?] per member in federal funds for management taken dollar and fn overhead. dollar worth Increase the proportion of spending going to AmeriCorps members instead of program management - We will establish a target that at least 75% percent of total spending on -velamy programs should go to Corps members. don't libe this ek. cuts Increase the number of education-award-only slots - We will set aside 25% [?] of the Trust Fund for service scholarships not connected with program grants. [better way of we expressing?] Increase private sector contributions - We have announced that starting in this funding cycle, all programs must secure some private contributions. Furthermore, we will establish a goal that by 2002 [?] one half of AmeriCorps program resources will come from non-federal sources and one third [?] will be from the private sector. We will immediately craft a plan for meeting those goals. We estimate that the net effect of these changes will be to reduce the average federal taxpayer cost for AmeriCorps from $19,000 [?] down to $15,000 [?] per person in three years. We have also adopted a plan to reduce costs at the National Civilian Community Corps by 25 percent [?] over five years. That initiative would In addition to these cost-cutting efforts, we will improve the management of AmeriCorps by taking these significant steps: Reform the grant-making process - As recommended by the Inspector General, we will Reduce Washington control over state decisions - We have announced that State commissions will have much greater latitude in deciding which programs get national service money. For instance, tk tk tk tk. Increase the emphasis on programs that leverage volunteers - We have instructed programs to give greater emphasis to those programs working with and assisting traditional volunteer programs. This will dramatically increase the impact of each AmeriCorps dollar and ensure that AmeriCorps continues to compliment and assist the millions of Americans who serve as volunteers without monetary compensation at all. Strengthen legislative safeguards against political advocacy among programs - To remove any ambiguity that might exist, we have further strengthened our already tight constraints against political advocacy. Programs have been reminded that. " " Expand evaluation efforts - I've established a special working group on evaluation to examine ways we can strengthen our evaluation, monitoring and quality-assurance operations. These steps are just the beginning. I look forward to working closely with you to ensure that the program improves, survives, and, indeed, grows so that all Americans - regardless of political party - can be proud of how AmeriCorps members are serving their communities and nation. I am intensely proud of what the Corporation for National Service - and the 500 locally- based, state-supervised, non-profit-run programs - have accomplished in just two years. Whether its raising reading scores in elementary schools or fishing garbage out of polluted rivers, AmeriCorps members have shown extraordinary resourcefulness and energy. I am excited that, with your leadership, AmeriCorps will be able to do even more. Sincerely, Harris Wofford CEO Corporation for National Service 1996 APPLICATION PROCESS Match Options ASSUMPTION: For the 1996 Renewal Process, which the third year of a three year cycle, we would only apply minor reforms, if any. More radical reforms would occur with reauthorization. OPTION #1: Increase the Program match from 25% to 30%. 20th 4020 walvers of S 1 In Pros: Significant increase in match. Can be in-kind, so should not be an undue burden on most programs. Cons: Could negatively impact some quality programs. 152 Does not change the cash match requirements. 5020 OPTION #2: Increase the Member Costs match from 15% to 16% and the Program match from 25% to 30%. Pros: All match requirements are increased. Cons: Could over-burden programs who are already finding a difficult fundraising environment because of the political uncertainty around AmeriCorps. Some programs might have to drop out of AmeriCorps. OPTION #3: Do not change the match requirements this year. Pros: Does not change our requirements on short notice. Allows us the time to make well-considered changes with reauthorization. Cons: No symbolic increase on match. 1996 RENEWAL APPLICATION PROCESS Cost per Member Options ASSUMPTIONS: For every option, all programs would be asked to target no more than $13,800 as a cost per Member. For the 1996 Renewal Process, we would only apply minor reforms. More radical reforms would occur with reauthorization. pers 500 of OPTION #1: All programs with a FY95 per member cost of more than $13,800 will be required to cut at least 10% in their FY96 per member cost. Pros: Clear and simple to administer. Cons: Inflexible. Does not allow State Commissions any discretion. Could negatively effect the quality of programs who cannot efficiently run with any less money and cannot easily fundraise the difference. 16,666 obb't OPTION #2: State Commissions will be requested to bring down by at least an 20000 4725 average of 10% the FY96 per Member costs of all programs with a FY95 per member cost of more than $13,800. 15275 Pros: Allows State Commissions maximum flexibility in working to bring 17,000 down the costs of their high end programs. 15300 Cons: Since it is at the discretion of the State Commission, some programs could retain a very high per Member cost, with a less than 10% decrease. OPTION #3: No program may have a per Member cost of more than $17,000. In addition, State Commissions will be requested to bring down by at least an average of 10% the FY96 per Member costs of the programs with a FY95 per member cost of more than $13,800. Pros: Brings all programs below a certain level. (This would also apply to new programs.) But allows State Commissions some flexibility in working to bring down the costs of their high end programs. Cons: At $17,000 per Member, cost with educational award is still more than $20,000. The 10% decrease in costs would only be an average. Total I N9 of Draft rev. 4 1/19/96; 05:17 PM Memo To: State Commission Executive Directors Memo From: Diana Rodriguez Algra Subject: AmeriCorps Guidelines for 1996 State Program Funding Date: Thank you for your input over the months regarding ways in which the Corporation, working with State Commissions, could streamline the AmeriCorps renewal and reporting systems in the coming year. Based on commissions' recommendations and our goal to devolve more responsibility to the states, I am pleased to provide an overview of the 1996 program funding process. Please note that at the time of this writing, the Fiscal Year 1996 appropriation for the Corporation remains unresolved as part of the larger budget negotiations between the Administration and Congress. We will keep you apprised of any congressional directives which may require some changes to the program and/or renewal process in the coming year. Intenet CHANGES IN 1996 Part of ) Increased State Commission Role. The Corporation is aware of how familiar Specific state commissions are with their programs through regular monitoring and the renewal process. Therefore, the Corporation will accord greater weight in 1996 to the state commissions' renewal process and recommendations. This places the primary responsibility for review of renewal requests on the states. of entor New and Renewal Programs. Because the Corporation does not anticipate ? increased funding for the fiscal year 1996, it will not accept any new competitive applications. A state may choose to accept new applications for its formula funds and, if quality standards are met, include new applications in its formula pool. States will not be able to move existing formula programs for consideration into the competitive pool. If a competitive program is not renewed, a state may consider funding the program from its formula pool. If the Corporation determines that it has excess competitive funds, it will consider using those Effer funds to support some 1996 grantees for two years. State Peer Reviews for New Formula Programs. States which choose to recommend new formula programs must undertake a competitive grant propership app tearnders 1 Draft rev. 4 1/19/96; 05:17 PM application process which includes a peer review. Enclosed is a document on the grant application review process [this will be ready for internal distribution on Monday.] Corporation staff is also available to provide technical assistance. although Expansion of Programs. Keeping in mind that the Corporation does not anticipate increased funding for the fiscal year 1996, the Corporation will consider reasonable requests for expansion. everyte funded Planning Grants. No new planning grants are allowed in 1996. Planning grants funded in 1995 can only be considered for operating grants if the commission + intends to run a competition for new formula programs. In this instance, a planning grantee must submit a new program application. Objectives Development Assistance. The Corporation is sponsoring Project STAR -- Support and Training for Assessing Results. If programs need assistance in developing revised or new objectives before submitting their renewal request, they may contact Project STAR at 1-800-548-3656. Relocation Costs. No Corporation funds may be used for relocation costs. + Final Decisions. To help ensure that renewed programs have sufficient time for male orderly start-ups in year two/three and that grants are awarded in a timely and fashion, the Corporation anticipates making final internal decisions no later than June 30, 1996. Grant award letters may be issued on a rolling basis. RENEWAL REQUEST Contents: The Renewal Request packet should contain the following items in the following order: The State Title Page Form. A brief (3-5 pages) narrative describing the commission's renewal review process and program monitoring strategies. A summary of the commission's funding recommendations. A one-page summary sheet for each program which the commission recommends for renewal placed on top of each program's Renewal Request. This summary must include an analysis of the program's progress, recommendations for improvement and a recommended funding level. A budget analysis check list for each program which the commission recommends for renewal placed immediately after the one-page summary sheet and on top of the program's Renewal Request. The program's Renewal Request. Each program must use the enclosed Title Page Form, Budget Forms and Objectives Forms. 2 Draft rev. 4 1/19/96; 05:17 PM Commission Renewal Process: It is each state commission's responsibility to design a sound renewal process that will allow it to accurately evaluate each program's progress and upcoming year plans and make recommendations for funding to the Corporation. The Corporation will evaluate the process each state followed to review their programs' renewal requests and reach funding recommendations. If the review process is sound and funding recommendations seem reasonable, the Corporation will accept the commission's recommendations. However, the Corporation reserves the right to question commission funding recommendations if the review process does not appear thorough or if the Corporation does not find that the recommended program meets the selection criteria states were required to follow. Criteria for Review: For 1996, the Corporation, in general, is committed to renewing 1995 grants, if programs meet quality standards. Primary criteria for determining which programs will be renewed are the quality of the program's progress to date and of their year two/three plans. Commissions should also consider site visit reports and any other relevant documentation concerning a program in determining quality. Programs should be candid about problems and issues encountered during this year and efforts to address them. Criteria to determine renewal decisions should include: Progress to Date In this section each program should complete the program progress report form Year Two/Three Plans (this section will include expanded language by Monday. Also we will refer states to the 1995 guidelines) Program Design Organizational Capacity NEW FORMULA PROGRAMS State Review Process: If the state chooses to accept new applications, the state must establish and conduct a peer review process to evaluate the quality of proposed programs. It is each state commission's responsibility to design a sound peer review and staff review process 3 Draft rev. 4 1/19/96; 05:17 PM that will allow it to accurately evaluate each proposed program's application and make recommendations for funding to the Corporation. The Corporation is willing to provide technical assistance on developing a peer review process. Any new formula program recommended for funding by commissions must adhere to the AmeriCorps Program Guidelines and Requirements and Statutory Requirements and Restrictions detailed in the AmeriCorps State Guidelines for 1995 Applicants (copy enclosed.) The peer review process must include the following selection/evaluation criteria: (this section will include expanded language by Monday) IMPACT Getting Things Done Strengthening Communities Developing Members OTHER QUALITY ISSUES Organizational Capacity National Identity (WE HAVE TO CHANGE THIS NAME) Evaluation and Continuous Improvement Cost-effectiveness and Sustainability Proposed programs must address either 1995 National Issue Area Priorities or any priority previously established by the State. The State priorities must be within the four statutorily-mandated issue areas of education, public safety, human and environmental needs. Contents: The new formula recommendation packet should contain the following items in the following order: A brief (3-5 pages) narrative describing the commission's peer review process. A summary of the commission's funding recommendations. A one-page summary sheet placed on top of each program's application. This sheet must include a program summary, an analysis of the program and a recommended funding level. A budget analysis check list for each program placed immediately after the one-page summary sheet and on top of the program application. The program's application. Each program must use the enclosed Title Page Form, Budget Forms and Objectives Forms. 4 Draft rev. 4 1/19/96; 05:17 PM SUBMISSION PROCEDURES The State must submit an unbound original and seven copies of a "Renewal Request " packet. The Renewal Request packet must be received by the Corporation no later than 3:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, May 1, 1996. Applications must be mailed or hand-delivered to the Corporation for National Service, 1201 New York Avenue, N.W., Box AS, Washington, D.C. 20525. Facsimiles will not be accepted. SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS The State submission to the Corporation should be presented in the following order: Renewal Request -- Formula Programs -- Competitive Programs New Formula Applications (if applicable) 5 GRANTS GUIDANCE Each budget that is submitted should reflect a well-thought-out program and should clearly support the program design. Renewal applicants should demonstrate that efforts have been made to incorporate modifications in this year's budget that are based upon prior experience in operating an AmeriCorps program. The budget component should be sufficient to perform the tasks described in the proposal narratives. It should not contain unexplained amounts for miscellaneous or contingency costs, or unallowable line items such as entertainment costs. Detailed budget narratives should be organized in the same order as the budget forms and clearly identify requested Corporation share and grantee share. The grantee share of specific items should meet at least the minimum requirements set forth by the Corporation. The narrative must be completed for funds requested from the Corporation and for all other matching funds. For each of the line items contained on the budget forms, a full explanation must be provided in the budget narrative that specifies the purpose, cost basis and calculation. Programs must comply with all applicable OMB circulars for grant management and federal laws, including the supplementation, nonduplication, and nondisplacement provisions set forth in 45 CFR 2506.2. Non-profit organizations must comply with the independent audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133. The Corporation will provide copies of OMB Circulars to applicants that do not have access to such materials. A budget analysis check-list has been provided to help evaluate the program budgets. A check-list should be prepared on behalf of each AmeriCorps Program that is submitted for renewal to ensure that programs are in compliance with the guidance that is provided. Please remember that the check-list is merely guidance. It should be used in conjunction with the grant provisions which provide detailed information about compliance. Note: The following guidance will be included and/or changed within this piece as decisions are made at the Corporation: Match requirements Cost-per-Member guidelines Living allowance amounts BUDGET ANALYSIS CHECK-LIST Legal Applicant: Please ensure that all budgets meet the following criteria before they are submitted to the Corporation. Read the guidance carefully in the right column when reviewing each program's application. A check should be placed in the left column that indicates compliance on the part of the program. MEMBER SUPPORT COSTS Yes No All budget items under Member Support Costs (living allowance, FICA workers' compensation, health care) have, at a minimum, a 15% cash match. Except for health care, matches cannot be made with other federal funds. Yes No Full-time AmeriCorps Members are receiving the minimum living allowance of $ Programs in existence prior to September 21, 1993 may offer a lower living allowance than the Minimum. If such a program chooses to offer a living allowance, it is exempt from the minimum requirement but not from the maximum requirement. Programs are not required to pay part-time members living allowances but if they do, they could prorate the full-time living allowance. Yes No Living allowances are not paid on an hourly basis. They may be calculated using service hours and program length to derive a weekly or bi-weekly distribution amount. The distribution should occur in equal increments that are not based on a specified number of hours worked. Yes No Correct FICA calculation. All programs must pay FICA for any Member receiving a living allowance. FICA should be calculated at 7.65% of the total amount of the living allowance and must be prorated in the same proportion as the Corporation and Grantee match. Yes No Correct Workers' Compensation calculation. Some States require workers' compensation for their AmeriCorps Members. Programs must check with their State Department of Labor or State Commission to determine if the program is required to pay workers' compensation and at what level. Programs that are not required to pay workers' compensation need to cover their Members for on-the- job-injuries through their own existing coverage or a new policy purchased in accordance with normal procedures. Yes No Health care provided for full-time AmeriCorps Members only (unless part-time serving for a sustained full-time period of time such as summer service). If a program chooses to provide health care to other part-time Members, Corporation funds may not be used to help pay for any portion of the cost. Programs must provide health care coverage to all full-time members who do no have adequate health care coverage at the time of enrollment or who lose coverage due to participation in the program. In addition, programs must provide coverage if a full-time Member loses coverage during the term of service through no deliberate act of his or her own. If programs already carry minimum benefits at a reasonable cost, they may use existing policies to cover Members. The corporation will not cover health care costs for family members. Yes No Each program should budget $32.00 per Member for the Member Identification Package. The Corporation will pay for the standard package and up to $150.00 per Member for additional safety apparel or specialized item that are necessary to perform daily service. A justification for these additional items must be provided in the budget narrative. STAFF Yes No Staff costs are attributed directly to the operation of the AmeriCorps program/project. Examples include costs for staff who recruit, train, place, or supervise Members. Yes No Staff that is indirectly involved in the management or operation of the applicant organization is funded through the administrative cost section of the budget. Examples of administrative costs include legal staff, central management and support functions. Yes No An AmeriCorps staff member's time and related expenses may not be charged to the Corporation or Grantee share of the Grant while engaged in organized fund raising. Expenses incurred to raise funds may be paid out of the funds raised. Development officers and fund-raising staff are not allowable expenses. OPERATIONAL Yes No Funds for the purchase of equipment (does not include general office use equipment ) are limited to 10% of the total grant amount. Yes No All single equipment items over $500 are specifically listed. Yes No Justification/explanation of equipment items is included. Note: Equipment purchases should be at a minimum for renewal programs. Therefore, the Corporation is discouraging equipment purchases such as computers and printers unless a unique situation is demonstrated. Yes No Corporation funds may not be used to pay relocation expenses of AmeriCorps Members. ADMINISTRATION Yes No The maximum Corporation share of Administrative costs cannot exceed 5% of total Corporation funds. (Multiply total Corporation funds by .0526) Yes No Administrative costs include the following: (1) indirect costs such as legal staff, central management and support functions; (2) costs for financial, accounting, auditing, internal evaluations, and contracting functions; (3) costs for insurance that protects the entity that operates the program; and (4) the portion of the salaries and benefits of the director and any other program administrative staff equal to the portion of time that is not spent in support of specific project objectives. OTHER Yes No All "Operational Costs" (anything other than Member Support Costs) are matched at least 25% by the grantee with cash or in-kind services. Yes No The estimated number of eligible Members and children requiring child care assistance is included. Yes 'No The number of new full-time and part-time Members receiving education awards is included. Yes No Programs meet the "Cost Per Member" guidelines. (If not, a justification is provided to explain a higher cost program). shirley, Droald recommfer funds in Harris the Imerecorps concerning the up to" $5,000' matching duggest following a. match cash & in kind, amount be for Describility identified in the proposal of reviewed b, The americorps grantee, after award, he paid on as monthly basis as Amount be Mem ber + 7,000 5,000 (upto) program match 12,000 per Mem ber 12/ months (or lower $1,000 per on bard per C, Simphicity-no no. of members on X Fixed rate - 4/4 fund peport reporting hakek d. has cost reimbarsable - expenditure may detailed accting # of Fed. finds in areas necessary performance accting for of members, service accomplishments. Preliminary Draft -- Not for Distribution February 14, 1996 12:07 PM APPENDIX I Survey of the Field To obtain input from the field, a survey of selected programs and commissions was conducted. The sample included AmeriCorps*Stat programs from each of the five clusters, a few Directs, urban and rural programs, urban and rural youth corps, and selected State Commissions from each of the five clusters. Below is a summary of the survey's major findings. State Commissions Percent of programs currently meeting their match requirements. All state commissions contacted reported that all of their programs are meeting their match requirements, except two in one state (one new program and one large, complex program). Percent of programs which are over-matched. Many of the state programs are exceeding their match. (Several in California, over 50% in Washington, 100% in Kansas, 75% in Georgia, 100% in Massachusetts, and 95% in Maryland.) Some sponsors have a higher match on the living allowance, but the larger extent of the over-match is in-kind. Characteristics of those programs having difficulty meeting their match. Community based non-profit organizations. Extent of Federal and other public funds in the match. The extent of the use of other non-CNS federal funds varies (from 1/3 of programs in California to very few in Kansas). The commissions report that the traditional sources of federal funds are diminishing -- Forest Service, JTPA. Many programs, however, have a significant level of matching funds from state and local public sources. In a number of cases, the programs have a 100% match from these sources. 11 Preliminary Draft --- Not for Distribution February 14, 1996 12:07 PM Potential difference in impact on types of programs from an increased match. The commissions advise that any increase in match will have a greater impact on the following types of programs: corps, sponsors in economically less developed communities, rural programs (away from metropolitan centers, foundations, corporations), smaller communities, new start-up programs, and community-based non-profit organizations. Maximum amount of match increase (cash and in-kind) which continues 75 percent of existing AmeriCorps sponsors. While the numbers vary across state commissions, the general conclusion is a minimal increase in cash and 30-50% increase in operating (including in- kind). Calif. 15% cash; 30% in-kind (in first year). provide challenge grants. Georgia up to 40% cash and in-kind. Kansas 50% cash; 50% in-kind. Maryland 35% cash; 35% operating with at least 10% cash (phase up to 50%) Mass. 15% cash; 30% in-kind. Wash. 20% cash; 50% in-kind and cash (over 5 years). Most realistic timeframe for reaching the new match levels. Most commissions advise that sponsors could reach an increase in the match in the first year, but suggest that three to five years be provided for meeting a higher level, such as 50%. Calif. Year One -- 30% (in-kind). Georgia 3 years for urban programs; sliding scale up to 5 years for rural and new programs. Kansas 50% cash; 50% in-kind. Maryland 2 years. Mass. 1-2 years to reach 40%. Wash. up to 50% over 5 years. Additional steps to increase private sector support. Suggestions provided by the commissions to increase private sector support include: institute an incentive/challenge approach (Calif.); decrease politicization which drives big foundations away; CNS to build strong public- private partnerships; CNS to bring foundations together; push for long-term (10 year) commitments; assist sponsors target major companies in rural areas; 12 Preliminary Draft -- Not for Distribution February 14, 1996 12:07 PM clarification of fundraising rules (allow staff who are paid, in part, by local funds to fundraise on that time; allow Members to fundraise on their own time without uniforms); CNS to improve its promotion of what it does (change to one program, not different 'streams of service' which confuses the public); CNS should not compete against states or local programs for foundation funding; CNS to work with state commissions on developing relationships with funders at the state and national levels; commissions to designate a staff member for 'resource development and sustainability'; and CNS to prepare a basic packet for local sponsors on resource identification. AmeriCorps Sponsors (State and National Directs) 13 REFORM Reduce average [federal?] taxpayer cost to $15,000 [?] per person - This would happen through a combination of steps: Terminate grants to federal agencies - The Corporation would no longer provide program grants to federal government service programs. Increase proportion of spending going to AmeriCorps members instead of program management - Establish a goal of tk% going to corps members Increase the number of education-award-only slots - Set aside 25% of the Trust Fund for service scholarships not connected with program grants. Increase private sector contributions - Require that all programs secure some private contributions immediately and establish a goal that by 2002 half of money spent on AmeriCorps programs will come from non-governmental sources. Impose a per-person cap limiting federal contribution to program costs -- #?????? Reform grant-making process - Adopt all appropriate recommendations from the Inspector General about improving the grant-making process. Reduce Washington control over state decisions - State commissions will have much greater latitude in deciding which programs get national service money. Increase the emphasis on programs that leverage volunteers Strengthen legislative safeguards against political advocacy among programs Eliminate federal funds for relocation expenses. Dramatically expand evaluation efforts. BOLD REFORM Reconfiguring AmeriCorps in order to: Dramatically expand the size of the Corps 2/14/96/ Shirley, I have no suggestions on the paper. We could discuss the numbers endlessly, and the reality is that our cost data at this stage of the program are not very good. The data are based on budgets and estimates, and as a result will be soft. Further, preoccupation with the numbers as the way to drive policy is a mistake. We should attempt, with the Congress, to decide what we want to do, what type of program will achieve it, and then reach agreement on a cost effective approach to carrying it out. [One minor point on the paper: reducing our support of Members' living allowances to $100/week raises equity issues (VISTA and NCCC, plus among grant programs themselves)]. I fully agree with your approach to identify several areas for negotiation at this point, leaving a resolution of the major issues to reauthorization. For what it's worth, my "bottom line" negotiating position would be to commit to the following at this point: 1. Eliminate federal grants. 2. Commit to a cap of no more than $5,000 per Member in each grant for program costs as part of the current renewal process. State that the average will be less. This will allow us to say that the total Corporation costs in these grants will not exceed $18,000, including the education award, and that the average should approach somewhere between $17,000-$17,500. State also that we agree to target our resources on direct Member support, with over 70% of each grant going for this purpose, unless the local program is covering all costs of the stipend. Agree fully that this will be reviewed further during reauthorization. 3. Commit to clear and demonstrable greater private sector support for the program that will be fleshed out in reauthorization. 4. Commit to doing a program of education award only grants of between 4-5,000 Members. Seek their involvement in the design and implementation. [As your paper points out, this cannot be restricted to private support, but we must have flexibility in how this is done.] Program will be up and running by the end of the year. I'd start by offering no. 1 only and then proceed to offer nos. 1 and 2, etc I'm not sure what else they want (haven't seen the letter). Anything more (e.g., limit local costs, private sector match of 50%, etc.), other than trivial nonsense, at this stage is simply not negotiating in good faith, undercuts Kassenbaum and reauthorization, could depart too much from the President's program, and would threaten what is a very fragile service infrastructure. We simply do not know that Grassley speaks for the Congress on national service. Per Not much help but let me know if there is anything specific you need. gary Strengthen the link between service and education Increase the ethic of sacrifice and service, ensuring that AmeriCorps is not viewed as a jobs program Reduce the per person costs to accommodate Republican concerns Allign the program more closely with the original Clinton plan Specifically, AmeriCorps would: Pay $100 a week in stipend, roughly equivalent to the Jesuit Volunteer corps and other missionary programs. Local programs could, if they chose, supplement the stipend up to $100 a week extra. Provide the same educational award of $4,725 Provide program operating money only on a matching basis. We give a dollar for every dollar the program puts in - a true match - up to $5,000 in federal money. Dramatically expand the numbers of "scholarship only" awards to citizens performing full-time rigorous service outside of AmeriCorps-financed programs. These steps taken together would allow us to increase the number of people earning college aid by serving their country from 25,000 up to 100,000 per year. [ck] It would effectively establish a cap on Corporation spending of $15,000 per AmeriCorps member and would reduce our average cost to xx,xxx per person. It would force programs to more aggressively seek private funding. REALLY BOLD REFORM To establish the Corporation for National Service as non-governmental entity by the year 2000. Require that the Board of Directors of the Corporation be bipartisan. Triple the number of NCCC of Slots. MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRIBUTION FROM: Shirley RE: Analysis of reform proposal DATE: February 12, 1996 Attached are my notes summarizing our free-form discussion of the reform proposal. The chart is a little confusing because the current program numbers are not the average costs, but rather, the "normal" costs assuming grantees provide the minimum matching funds for Member support and the actual "average" costs on program support. Therefore, the numbers seem high relative to what we know to be the overall average per FTE amounts. Please review the analysis and let me know what is wrong with it, missing, etc. I need to fill in the examples, and haven't looked carefully at the specific examples we pulled to discern trends. Comments asap. Distribution: Mike R Mike K Gary Tracy Diana A Lance David Current program -- full time members MEMBER COSTS Corporation Other Total Ed award 4,725 0 4,725 Living allowance 6,753 1,192 (+) 7,945 (+) FICA* 516 92 (+) 608 (+) Health care 1,020 180 1,200 Child care** 250 0 250 SUBTOTAL 13,264 1,464 14,728 Program grant 5,511 5,236 10,747 (state average) State Commission 400 100 500 Corporation*** 1,600 0 1,600 SUBTOTAL 7,511 5,336 12,847 TOTAL 20,775 6,800 27,575 Reform proposal -- 52-week full-time members MEMBER COSTS Corporation Other Total Ed award 4,725 0 4,725 Living allowance 5,200 up to 5,200 up to 10,400 FICA* 398 up to 398 up to 796 Health care 1,200 0 1,200 Child care** 250 0 250 SUBTOTAL 11,773 up to 5,598 up to 17,371 Program grant up to 5,000 up to 5,000 up to 10,000 State Commission 400 100 400 Corporation*** 1,600 0 1,600 SUBTOTAL up to 7,000 up to 5,100 up to 12,000 TOTAL up to 18,773 up to 10,698 up to 29,371 *FICA is calculated based on 7.65% of living allowance. Not all programs have had to pay FICA, although currently most do. It is a legal determination. To get an across the board exemption for AmeriCorps Members would require the support of the Finance/Ways and Means Committees. **Child care is calculated based on current total expenditures for child care benefits divided among all AmeriCorps Members. In reality, some Members receive a benefit of up to several thousand dollars, but most do not qualify for this assistance. ***Corporation costs are a very rough calculation that includes federal administration, training and technical assistance, recruitment, evaluation, etc. Policy issues related to this proposal: Living allowance Capping the living allowance at $10,000 would affect approximately 23 existing programs. These programs tend to recruit higher skilled, more highly educated Members. Lowering the minimum living allowance to $100 per week would possibly cause concern to the youth corps community and labor unions, who have lobbied in the past for a minimum wage- level living allowance. Requiring amounts of the living allowance that exceed $100 per week to be raised by the programs would increase the "match" burden for most current programs by about $1,500. We have assumed that the Corporation would continue to pay most or all of a health care policy and child care benefits. If these are eliminated, we would want to revisit the effect of lowering the living allowance. Assuming that many programs end up dropping to the minimum amount and not augmenting the living allowance, there may be an effect on the demographics of the program; based on current data, it is the middle class Members who say they are most likely to forego AmeriCorps if the living allowance were lowered or eliminated. Program support Current program support grants range from X to X, with the average being X. The reform proposal would have the effect of requiring a larger match from most programs (currently only X programs are providing a 50% or better match). We are assuming that programs would be free to raise and spend more than the required match, and that the proposal does not cap total available resources. If this is true, the effect would mainly be that most programs would have to raise more funds than they are now raising or lower costs significantly. In a few cases, programs that want to maintain their current levels of support from the Corporation would have the incentive to increase overall program costs -- for example, Volunteer Maryland currently receives $5,224 per Member from the Corporation and contributes only $3,723. Such a program would want to "pad" its contribution so it could receive the maximum. Significant issues are raised around the administration of a challenge grant. If the challenge works like a typical government match, in which the grantee says "I will go out and raise $5,000 if you give me $5,000, " with compliance being monitored after the fact, no such problems arise. If, on the other hand, grantees must have the cash in hand in order to draw down the corresponding amount of the grant, there would have to be a signficant auditing capacity put into place that does not now exist. When such challenge grants have been proposed in the past, the Corporation has not been able to administer them in this fashion. If, as City Year has proposed, we rely on an independent audit to verify that funds are indeed in the bank, there would be a timing problem -- in many cases, it takes up to 18 months for an audit to be completed. A policy issue to be decided is what would count toward the "challenge." Federal agency funds would presumably not count. Would the funds have to be in cash or could it be in kind? Programs have an easier time with in kind, but could more easily "pad" an in-kind match. Perhaps that matters less when the amount of the Corporation grant is effectively capped at $5,000. If more than 10 - 15% of the match must come from nongovernmental sources, staff predict a majority of programs would drop out. The effect on the actual design of programs is hard to predict. Consider a few circumstances: Rural programs tend to have high transportation costs, tend to use federal funds as their base of support, and have more difficulty raising nongovernmental funds. Would we provide a "rural supplement"? Smaller programs (20 people) would not achieve the economies of scale that larger programs would. But the higher matching requirements would make it difficult for many programs to grow signficantly. Geographically dispersed programs tend to have high travel costs. For example, Many programs would have to be redesigned to eliminate large group trainings and other events demanding that Members gather together. Would this have an effect on quality (usually the trainings are conducted by the subtantive experts) and the sense of unity Members have? Could this be offset by more local gatherings across programs, new training designs that do not demand that Members gather, and use of technology (such as internet)? Corps and team-based programs tend to have higher staff costs than individual placement models. For example, Evaluation results suggest that corps and team-based programs do better at building esprit de corps than individual placement models, and are less likely to run into problems regarding the type of service performed (when the individual Members are supervised at the site rather than by a staff member of the AmeriCorps program, they are more likely to become adjunct administrative staff). Some of the cost differential could be offset if team-based programs use second year Members as team leaders. However, a likely result of the fixed-price grant might be to increase programs that essentially act as "placement agencies" at the expense of those with more coherent program designs. Could these risks be offset by aggressive promotion of team leader models, emphasize on "single issue" individual placement programs, and a more clear "volunteer generator" niche? Youth corps and other programs involving at-risk youth tend to rely heavily on federal funds. Eliminating use of federal funds as a match (coupled with our cutting off of grants to federal agencies) will cause a good portion of these programs to drop out. Education award only issues A key part of this proposal is that "education awards only" programs would become a signficant part of the AmeriCorps portfolio. Currently, the Corporation has 7 education awards only programs in AmeriCorps State and National and 40 A*VISTA cost share agreements (covering 600 A*VISTAs). Staff estimate that more than 90% of current "ed awards only" and "cost shares" are supported by federal funding. Concerns about ed award only programs in the past have centered on quality -- if too many organizations wanted to participate, we would not be able to monitor them. For that reason, other than in the federal partnerships arena, we have not worked aggressively to promote this option outside of the existing grantee universe. A*VISTA on the other hand, has made it a priority to pursue these kinds of relationships. Does the field have the capacity to signficantly increase the number of ed awards only and cost share agreements? That depends on the assumptions about who will pay the related costs. Here are options: Federal programs: We have pursued these aggressively through the Office of Federal Partnerships, which at one time had as many as 6 staff. We are down to 1 staff person in this office and have determined that this is no longer a priority. However, this is the most likely source of funding for additional cost-share arrangements. State funding: State funding could be a fertile source of cost-share funds, although it may be difficult to track whether the funds are really state funds and not federal block grant funds co- mingled with state appropriations. State Commissions and state offices could pursue these arrangements more effectively than Washington-based staff. Higher education: Higher education institutions may be an excellent source of cost-share funds, provided that we are comfortable with part-time Members. A review of our part-time portfolio indicates that most of our part-time programs are higher education-sponsored programs or those that use college students as Members. Issues to consider are the implications of providing education awards to unstipended part-time Members; whether we would be effectively "displacing" current volunteers with AmeriCorps Members (by providing an education award to those who would otherwise be regular volunteers); and whether we are concerned with creating more situations in which individuals receiving ed awards are serving alongside those who are not. Local funds: We have not fully explored whether school districts, police, and munipalities might be a source of cost-share funds. Note potential union issues (AFSCME has been our closest ally among the unions up to now). Existing service programs: Providing education awards to existing service programs could be perceived as "displacing" current full-time servers (if we end up simply providing ed awards to an existing corps or program for their existing slots). If we expect these programs to add additional members, staff feel it is unlikely that many will want to participate due to the high cost involved. Non-profits: Given the costs of operating a program of a signficant size (a program of 20 full- time Members would cost more than $100,000), staff believe it is unlikely that many non- profits would be interested in paying for an education award only program similar to the programs funded by AmeriCorps. Much more attractive would be a A*VISTA-style cost- share arrangement for one or two Members. Either would have to be marketed strategically and aggressively to achieve the large numbers contemplated. Shirley, with the 'Harris' model, we assume that grantee matches now in become partol the up to $5,000' the budget as Member costs (A)now match so we should epamine circled grantee FTE Costs (Budget lines A to F) and compare to to circled CNS cost (Badget B to F) many programs have low have Grantee MAtch $ and low CNS $ or PT/FT members and/or unstipended PT. AMERICORPS*STATE BUDGETS EDIT/ENTRY VIEW GranteeName: New Mexico Commission for National & Community Service SubgranteeNam National Indian Youth Leadership Development Project Inc e: SubgranteeState: NM SubgranteeZip: SubgranteeCity: ProgramTitle: Competitive New Operating AmeriCorps*State ProgramType: Southwest GrantNumber: 94ASTNMODD $0 $10,000 Cluster: Subtotal B through E $125,969 $41,346 $167,315 F. Administration Program $11,774 $1,360 $13,134 State $0 $2,315 $2,315 Commission $11,774 $3,675 $15,449 Subtotal Bsthmugh F $137,743 $45,021 $182,764 Match % for B through 75.37% 24.63% 100.00% F TOTAL A through F $288,802 $71,685 $360,487 Estimated # of Children Grantee Share G. Child Care 6 $0 Match % for B through G 75.37% 24.63% 100.00% H. Educational Awards Full Time 20 $94,500 Part Time 0 $0 Part Time Continuing 0 Renewal Information 94 Award Amount $50,000 Total Amount of Carryover $0 Amount of Formula Carryover $0 Budget Analysis CNS GranteeName Total Cost per FTE $14,440 $3,584 $18,024 Cost/FTE FICA % 7.65% 7.65% 7.65% OK FT1700 Living Allowance (<$6,753) $6,753 $1,192 $7,945 Living PT900 Living Allowance (<$3,575) ? ? ? PT450 Living Allowance (<$1,787) ? ? ? PT300 Living Allowance (<$1,191) ? ? ? AmeriCorps Health Care per member $1,020 $180 $1,200 OK Alt Health Care per member $0 $0 $0 Alternate Equipment % 3.32% 2.09% 3.08% Health Care Administration % OK Page 2 00:00Pm . U ........ Senator Chuck Grassley (lowa) Senate Hart Building, Room SH-135 ############# Washington, D.C. 20510-1501 (202) 224-3744 FAX SHEET DATE: TO: Gae S' 2/9/96 OF: From Dean Zerbe FROM: Copy to Gene Deb — Shirley TYPE OF DOCUMENT Total Number of Pages, 4 Including Cover Sheet: February 9, 1996 The Honorable Harris Wofford Chief Executive Officer Corporation for National and Community Service 1201 New York Ave. NW Washington, D.C. 20525 Dear Mr. Wofford: I am writing to follow-up on our recent meeting. I appreciated the opportunity to have a frank discussion with you about the Corporation for National and Community Service's (CNCS) AmeriCorps program. As I testified before the House Committce on Economic and Educational Opportunities last year, I believe that AmeriCorps must implement several reforms if the program is going to meet the administration's own cost and performance goals. I stated that if CNCS implemented such reforms, AmeriCorps would be on the road to earning my support and that of other responsible critics. I'm pleased that in public statements and in our private discussions you have agreed that reforms must be brought to the AmeriCorps program. My August 29, 1995 letter to President Clinton outlined the specific cost reforms that I believe should be put in place to ensure that the taxpayers' money is spent effectively. They include provisions which would ensure: - Average total costs per full-time AmeriCorps participant $17,000; - 50% funding match from the private sector; and, - Federal taxpayer dollars targeted to students rather than federal, state and grantee administrative overhead and support. As I stated in my earlier testimony, I do not consider these reforms definitive. For example, I appreciate the argument that costs for extraordinary expenditures for supplies and equipment, such as a Habitat for Humanity program, should be exempted from a dollar cap. However, while there may be a need to sharpen pencils on the specifics of these reforms, there should be no question about the principles these reforms establish: lower overall costs, a greater private sector investment, and taxpayers' dollars directed at students. Along with these cost-reduction reforms, my letter to the President suggested two additional program changes: - Eliminating funding Lo other federal agencies. - Targeting AmeriCorps dollars to young people who are attending college or accredited vocational programs. The General Accounting Office (GAO) report stated that while the average program cost was $26,654 per participant for 10 months of service, the average cost per federal AmeriCorps program was over $31,000. Clearly, elimination of grants to federal agencies would lower costs substantially. In addition, the elimination of grants to federal agencies has broad bipartisan support -- it was proposed in the amendment offered by Senator Mikulski to restore funding for AmeriCorps. It is clear that Congress does not view funding to other federal agencies as an appropriate use of limited funds by CNCS. President Bill Clinton has repeatedly stated that AmeriCorps is about helping young people pay for college. Notwithstanding these statements, AmeriCorps provides significant numbers of jobs to individuals who will not be attending college or who graduated from college several years ago. T would recommend that CNCS consider careful targeting of scarce education dollars to assist young people who will use the funds to attend college or accredited vocational programs. For example, the program might increase the number of grants that provide only educational awards. While I did not address this issue in my letter to President Clinton, I would also encourage you to take immediate steps to reform the CNCS grant-making process. The Inspector Ceneral (IG) for CNCS will soon complete a report on the grant-making process at CNCS that was done at the request of Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) and myself. It is my understanding that the IG report will indicate serious weaknesses in the grant-making process at CNCS and suggest several reforms. I would strongly recommend that CNCS at a minimum implement all appropriate reforms suggested by the IG. In addition, I would ask that you consider having the IG perform a continual audit of the CNCS grant-making process similar to that currently performed by the IG at the National Science Foundation. These actions would go far in addressing the justifiable concerns about the integrity of the grants-making process at CNCS, especially the awarding of National Direct AmeriCorps grants. These concerns have been raised by Sen. Bond and myself. Lastly, I would ask that you give serious review to cost- cutting in the National Civilian Community Corp (NCCC) program. I have been told that the total costs of this program per participant for CNCS and the Department of Defense are excessively high. I believe the reforms outlined in this letter would help CNCS meet the goals intended by the administration when this program was first proposed. These reforms are very much in keeping with the spirit of Vice President Al Gore's National Performance Review -- which I have strongly supported. T am confident that WC can work together during the coming weeks to craft a meaningful and substantial reform package that contains measurable performance goals. It is my strong desire to see such a comprehensive retorm package implemented because it would both benefit students and ensure the taxpayers' money is spent wisely. If we could achieve agreement on which reforms should be implemented, on a plan for implementation, and on measurable performance goals, I would be pleased to voice my support for FY 1996 funding for AmeriCorps. However, in order to determine what AmeriCorps funding might be, I would encourage you to work with the administration to provide Senator Bond, Chairman of the VA/HUD Appropriations subcommittee, with recommendations of where program funding within the subcommittee could be reduced to pay for CNCS programs. CC: President Bill Clinton Senator Kit Bond GAOSRVY.XLS MAGIC ME AMERICORP PROJECTED SOURCES OF FUNDING For Grant Period 6/24/94 - 9/30/95 Total FTE FTE ALL Program AC Mbrs Volunteer Funding 25 212 Federal (a) AmeriCorp 734,401 29,376 3,464 GDAAC 63,000 2,520 297 TOTAL FEDERAL 797,401 31,896 3,761 Md State/Local school support 40,000 1,600 189 Md State Dept of Education 25,000 1,000 118 San Joaquin Probation Dpt 71,390 2,856 337 MA State Service Commission 500 20 2 TOTAL ST/LOCAL 136,890 5,476 646 Public Contributions (Foundations & Corporations) 225,176 9,007 1,062 TOTAL FUNDING ** 1,159,467 45,379 4,407 **not including public inkind (a) Key factors AmeriCorp volunteers 25 FTE volunteers Youth & Ederly volunteers 2660 at 2.5 hours per week X 33 wks=219450 hrs/1700 hrs= 129 FTE vclunteers Interns 500 interns at 6 hours per week X 33 wks=99000 1700 hrs= 58 FTE volunteers TOTAL LEVERAGED AND AMERICORP VOLUNTEERS 212 FTE volunteers Page 1 1994 29FTE'S $734,000 $ 25,310.00 1995 43 FTE'S $850,000 $ 19,767.00 MAGIC ME ® Learning to serve Serving to learn MAGIC ME AMERICA R AMERICORPS RENEWAL 1995-1996 1) BUDGET REVISION The revised budget for fiscal year 1996 represents a good-faith effort to make the maximum reductions possible, without jeopardizing the integrity of the program or diminishing program quality. Cuts were made to the Corporation side of the budget, while the MAGIC ME contribution was increased. The revised budget represents significant reductions to the Corporation's contribution: an overall 12% cut from the original FY '96 budget, a 27% cut from the FY '95 budget. a decrease of per Member costs from $25,324 in FY '95, $20,891 proposed for FY '96, to $18,409. a 34% reduction of Member-related costs from the original FY '96 budget, 52% less than the FY '95 budget. an 8% reduction in administrative costs compared with the original FY '96 budget, a 51% cut from the FY '95 budget. MAGIC ME, INC. 2521 N. CHARLES STREET BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21218 410-243-9066 FAX 410-243-9076 truncated operating costs, down 23% from the original FY '96 budget, and 52% less than the FY '95 budget. a pared down all-inclusive per Member and staff cost of $460 to attend the MAGIC ME AmeriCorps National Training Institute, compared with $721 proposed for FY '96, and $1,000 in FY '95. The impact of the revised budget will be felt at all Sites and the Parent Organization: The Member/staff ratio was 1:5 in FY '95, in FY '96 it will be 1:7. The length of the National Training Institute will be shorter, and evening programming will be eliminated to trim the need for overnight accomodation of local Members and staff. MAGIC ME staff will have additional responsiblities for conducting the training, since funds for consultants were eliminated. Funds to pay external evaluators were greatly reduced, which will place an additional burden on MAGIC ME staff to ensure continued high standards for program evaluation. MAGIC ME requires a per participant cost above the Corporation benchmark for several important reasons: The operation of the program requires bus transportation, supplies, and extensive communication. Although schools and service sites are being asked to share these costs, in many cases MAGIC ME is working in the poorest communities, where essential needs are not being met and resources are not available. Prior to conducting the program, any MAGIC ME Affiliate staff must attend a 4-5 day Training Institute, where they are certified as Group Leaders. AmeriCorps Members must similarly undergo this certification process prior to conducting the program. The position of MAGIC ME Group Leader requires knowledge usually found at a Masters degree level in education or social work. Since most Members are without formal training in this field, more extensive training, nationally and locally is needed. Staff supervision and monitoring in the field are critical to the success of the program. 2) FUND DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY MAGIC ME America: Strategies to Support the Whole Organization Research: Parent Organization staff are researching foundation and corporation grant opportunities. The Director of Development at the Parent Organization is currently attending the Foundation Center's (Washington, D.C.) seminar series titled Grantsmanship Part I & II which includes a session on research. The Director of Development has also added The Foundation Directory and the National Guide to Funding for Children, Youth and Families to the Parent Organization's library of funding sources. These steps will enable the Parent Organization to be more effective in identifying funding sources and making referrals to Sites. Marketing: The Parent Organization is currently planning a national cause-related marketing campaign. 1 This campaign will aim to increase name recognition of MAGIC ME nationally, as well as generate income. Enhanced visibility of MAGIC ME will aid local fundraising efforts. 1 MAGIC ME America Renewal, Parent Organization Narrative. page 19 Recruitment 171.8 m recrimement Staff costs (plus I curne) proposed 1.626 m + stall Prese H Eval. '96 Evalut 752 of provious yrs quartiquent Remater H PublicL/A c Pubs 325 + 145 22.5 m headers August 1- .5 Learnr serve Visibility March 1- .3 Bogin Presidio 5 Recriment 1.5 Federal Pathership .1 SHP Lis LISTA T/A L+S (includes NYLC) 2.5 Automation ? 75,000 ? 075 NCCC Teambaders ? .4 12.3 pwo 3 TH Decue PL/PA ? .3 Disability forume ? 2.5 .1 an (T/A + conflience 2.56 Prints 2 Olympics 8 v NYLC 2 m 2 DC Initiative I VISTA leaders Train 05 leaderly Sucurit 0 - Secior Summent 40,000 04 Management Evaluate Team 250 250,000 Volunteer Sagawa, Shirley From: Kowalczyk, Gary To: Sagawa, Shirley; Kenefick, Mike@CNCS MS Mail Se; Algra, Diana@CNCS MS Mail Serv; Heinaru, Peter@CNCS MS Mail Se; Rosenberry, Peg@CNCS MS Mail S Subject: RE: Date: Thursday, January 25, 1996 1:07PM Some minor points. 1) not true that our grant award covers at least 75% of program costs--should read "at most", as long as you are including in-kind contributions as a program cost (totally separate debate) 2) The $2,000 figure for State commission et. al. is okay for internal purposes, but is not an amount we have given out anywhere our testimony last year on the hill addressed all of AmeriCorps and totalled $1,300 for overhead, but did not include recruitment, training t/a, etc. 3) I agree that the cap options all say the same thing, but we can't give grantees a cap on costs that are not attributable to them (state commissions and federal overhead). Therefore, if we impose a cap, it needs to apply to the amounts in the grants per fte and perhaps the education award there may also be huge issues about imposing a cap on local costs, particularly if it is to include in-kind amounts--i'm assuming that is not on the table 4) A certification system in advance is not doable gao would never agree to doing it, and I suspect the IG would not as well. If someone is really considering this, we need a reality check here 5) a point that needs to be made somewhere is that equal caps for all programs is not an equitable system there are huge differences in types of programs, as well as regional cost variations Not my call, but I prefer a target much like what we did last year, with the guidance being that in the aggregate we anticipate providing federal support that is 5-10% per fte less than in the prior year. From: Sagawa, Shirley To: Kowalczyk, Gary; Kenefick, Mike@CNCS MS Mail Se; Algra, Diana@CNCS MS Mail Serv; Heinaru, Peter@CNCS MS Mail Se; Rosenberry, Peg@CNCS MS Mail S Date: Thursday, January 25, 1996 10:43AM Please review the following for accuracy -- This is for Harris so he can give us guidance on the renewal guidelines. Cost options: Keep in mind that the Corporation funding for AmeriCorps* State/National includes the following components: Grant award (covers roughly 85% of living allowance, health care, and at least 75% of program costs -- last year's average was $12,185 for state and $10,071 for national direct) Ed award ($4,725) State commission and federal administration, recruitment, t/ta etc. (about $2,000) Keep in mind that we reduced the per FTE grant amount from $13,800 to about $12,000 this year (this has not been publicized). Also keep in mind that it is difficult to monitor per FTE costs with precision because of the constant adding and dropping of Members that occurs during the year - it is much easier to use the "per FTE grant amount" than the actual federal cost. Also, keep in mind that we do not have the capacity at this time to track total federal cost or total available resources. Any certification system (in which the IG or GAO, for example, had to approve the grants before they could be awarded) would delay the awards significantly and could jeopardize the program. Option 1 -- impose a cap The following options are all different ways of saying the same thing. The effect would require the 34 state and 8 national direct programs that exceed $15,000 per FTE in their grant to cut by up to 10%, with 8 state and 5 national direct programs needing to cut more than 10%. Page 1 Cap of $17,000 per Member of Corporation funds (not including the education award -- includes grant plus state and federal overhead) OR Cap of $15,000 per Member of Corporation funds (not including the education award or state/federal overhead) OR Cap of $22,000 per Member of Corporation funds (includes all) OR Cap of $20,000 per Member of Corporation funds (includes ed award but not federal/state overhead) Option 2 -- mandate a percentage reduction Require all programs with a grant of more than $13,800 to cut at least 10% (affects 131 programs) OR Require state commissions to bring down by an average of 10% the per FTE grant amounts of their programs (note -- this goes along with the idea of giving states more control, but may be unfair to high cost states like California and Alaska) OR Provide guidance to states commissions and programs that they should shoot for a 10% cut for programs over $13,800, but don't mandate (or make waivable); commit that through budget negotiations, the Corporation will achieve an overall cut of 5% (on top of last year's cut of about 12% from the original $13,800 number). This would represent about a 17% cut in per FTE grant amounts; it is unclear whether changes in the federal agency portfolio will make this difficult to achieve, however. Note -- the cap and average reduction options could be combined; mandates can be made waivable; numbers can be adjusted. We do not recommend that the percentage cut be increased or the cap reduced below that proposed above. Page 2

nara / coll_wjc-ons / doc

Cost/FRE and Match Reports – 1995 [5]

ID: 289844659
Type: document

Citation Image

Metadata

id	289844659
sourceUrl	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/289844659
contentType	document
collections	Records of the Office of National Service (Clinton Administration) Shirley Sagawa's Files
iiifBase	https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/99905611/99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-003-2023.pdf
thumbnailUrl	https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/99905611/99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-003-2023.pdf
largeImageUrl	https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/wjc-ons/99905611/99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-003-2023.pdf
imageCount	1
hasImages	yes
source	import

Additional Source Fields

url	https://catalog.archives.gov/id/289844659
naId	289844659
levelOfDescription	fileUnit
otherTitles	99905611-20130661F-Seg2-027-003-2023
recordType	description
ocrSource	nara-archive

Pages

Page 1 OCR

Survos folio item chat

Ask the Scholar

Scholar Source Context